---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. In speaking to this amendment, I shall also indicate why I think the House should reject the noble Lord’s Amendments Nos. 5A, 5B and 5C. I understand the noble Lord's wish to raise the profile of the retro-reflective tape issue and to see the fitting of reflective tape to all heavy vehicles at the earliest opportunity. However, I remind the House that use of the tape is already permitted and that many vehicles are already fitted with it. The tape is helpful in the hours of darkness and in conditions of poor visibility. But UK trucks are already equipped with various conspicuity aids, such as side marker lights and rear reflective number plates, so we are not convinced that the tape's road safety effects will be as great in the UK as they might be in other countries where lorries have less conspicuous aids, apart from the tape. I recognise the noble Lord’s sincerity in wishing to bring about sooner rather than later what appears to be a sound road safety measure. But, as I have tried to explain before, if we were to regulate to require fitment of the tape in advance of changes to international requirements, we would be at risk of infraction proceedings from Brussels. In addition, I must point out that Clause 16 is deeply flawed in that, unlike the existing powers that it reflects, it does not have any teeth. In theory, therefore, the Secretary of State might make regulations requiring the fitment of retro-reflective tape to trucks and trailers but, if owners and operators failed to comply, they would face no penalties. It would be far better to rely on the powers that we already have. They are tried and tested, they include provision for enforcement and penalties, and we have undertaken to use them as soon as international law permits. It might help if I clarified the position on this subject further. Powers to make regulations about retro-reflective tape already exist, and regulations allow its use. Tape E-marked to UNECE Regulation 104 specification is acceptable throughout the UNECE, of which the European Union is a member, and many vehicles are already fitted with it. A UNECE amendment to mandate fitment of the tape for trucks seeking Regulation 48 certification is in hand and is expected to come into effect in 2009 or 2010. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, finds that unacceptable, and that the delay is there. The noble Lord will also recognise the advantages of having regulations which extend to vehicles which traverse the whole of Europe. There are great benefits in getting agreement on standard requirements for all trucks. Although I recognise the noble Lord’s impatience, he ought therefore to acknowledge the Government’s intention to move as quickly as we can. Nevertheless, we need this regulation. In addition, the UK must accept vehicles approved to the European Commission directive on lighting installation. At this time, retro-reflective tape is optional under the directive. There are plans to amend it to refer directly to UNECE Regulation 48 which is due to be amended to mandate fitment of tape. Until that time, I am afraid that the UK would be open to infraction proceedings if we introduced national requirements that were more stringent than the current optional fitment. Once Regulation 48 and the directive on lighting installation are amended to mandate retro-reflective tape, the UK will be able to mandate fitment on all new trucks, including UK vehicles not approved to Regulation 48. I remind the noble Lord that we have already committed to do this as soon as we can. However, European whole vehicle type approval for trucks and trailers is currently being developed and is well underway. This is a massive and important undertaking. The noble Lords, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Bradshaw, have been vocal about the necessity for Europe-wide regulations. It will harmonise the technical requirements for these vehicles, as has already been done for cars and motorcycles, and thus create a single market where vehicles which have been type-approved in one member state will automatically be accepted in all other member states. Trucks will include, among many other requirements and vehicle types, mandatory compliance with the directive on lighting installation and therefore fitment of retro-reflective tape for new N2 and N3 vehicles and O3 and O4 trailers. It is expected to come into force on 1 January 2010. Even if we ignored possible infraction procedures and set out to make specific early regulations to mandate the tape, not only does the process take considerable time but it would also, I suspect, wastefully duplicate existing ECWVTA work. We are also required to notify the European Commission of new or altered technical regulations; failure to do so renders that regulation unenforceable. The notification process itself takes time, and I am convinced that such regulations—even if they were not thrown out as a result of the notification procedure—would be likely to come into effect so close to the expected coming into force of the international requirements I have just described that our regulations would have little impact. In any case, such regulations would apply only to UK registered vehicles and would have no effect on the foreign vehicles on our roads, whereas a European directive would be all-embracing. In 2005, Loughborough University carried out a study on retro-reflective tape. The final report noted that, "““the effect of the addition of retro reflective tape markings may not result in similar [accident] reduction rates [in the UK] as those observed in America””," in different circumstances. It also pointed out that calculating cost/benefit ratios was difficult because limited data were available, and that the data used may, for various reasons, have resulted in an over-estimate of the reduction in the number of accidents which could be attributed to the tape. Nevertheless, that is a marginal argument. I have sought to convey to the noble Lord that we are as one with him on the advisability of the tape and the benefits it will bring. Under our regulations, we cannot avoid possible infraction proceedings or act much in advance of the date that Europe is setting as a target for the delivery of the requirements we need, which will govern all vehicles on British roads. That is why I hope that the noble Lord will accept the Government’s case and, having moved his amendment, will consider withdrawing it after the usual useful debate. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)