---

Road Safety Bill [Lords]

I apologise for the fact that the issue is back before us once again, but I thank the Minister for sending me the letter that was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) on several occasions. I agree with the Minister when he says at the start of the letter’s second paragraph that"““there is clearly some confusion.””" Let us hope that we can overcome that confusion. To back up what the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, I quote the third paragraph, which is the most pertinent. In it, the Minister says:"““Our stance is that since the old UN-ECE Regulation 48 mentions Regulation 104 tape as ‘optional’, this reference takes competence on this subject away from individual Member States. Unlike reflective plates on the back of vehicles, which are not mentioned in Regulation 48 and on which we are therefore free to have (and indeed do have) national prescriptions.””" I am interested in what the word ““optional”” means there. I shall not speak for long, because people know where I am coming from, but I hope that the Minister will go further. What are the UK Government saying about the Italian legislation? If the UK Government are saying, ““We’re all behind you chaps. We think that what you’re doing is exactly what we want to do””, my case rests and the Government are exactly in the right and morally perfect. However, if the UK is questioning what the Italian Government are doing given that everybody—and I mean everybody—seems to think that the provision is, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, a jolly good idea, we are hardly on the side of the angels. I do not see why we should not be on the side of the angels. Everyone agrees it is a jolly good thing.