Road Safety Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 33:"Page 9, line 16, at end insert—" ““(   )   that the person committing the offence is not normally resident in the United Kingdom,”” The noble Baroness said: Before turning to the amendment, perhaps I may put a question to the noble Baroness, or to the noble Lord if he is to respond to   this amendment. I ask forgiveness if this is just ignorance, but it is an opportunity to put me right. In the new system of deposits, I am not clear who is entitled to collect them. My question is this. Are the people who issue the fixed penalties or the notices requiring the deposit able to collect them; that is, is a policeman or vehicle inspector able to take a deposit immediately? If so, that is a big step away from what we understand has been the position in the past. I preface my amendment with that question because it is relevant to Amendments Nos. 33 and 34. They would limit the requirement for a deposit payment to a non-resident offender driving a vehicle registered abroad. They would also restrict such a requirement to an offender not normally resident in the United Kingdom. These amendments are designed to probe the Government on why they are making the ambit of the financial penalty deposit system set out in the clause much wider than any sensible justification for it would suggest. The justification for the system is that it would enable an enforcement authority to ensure that foreign drivers who break UK traffic laws with impunity can be dealt with expeditiously. That is to be welcomed. Some 44,000 offences committed by the drivers of foreign-registered vehicles went unpunished during the last year for which figures are available. That gives an idea of the extent of the problem. However, the Government are taking extra catch-all powers in the clause which can be used against United Kingdom citizens and residents and those with UK-registered vehicles, when in effect it deals only with foreign lorry drivers who break the law and commit other offences. We understand that there is little opportunity to catch those drivers and that a financial deposit scheme will be of only limited use. Indeed, the clause will not give immediate relief because nothing in it would ensure that the driver of a lorry that has triggered, say, a speed camera at a site where no one is present will be stopped. The lorry driver will not pay the penalty before he returns to the Continent, which is where most of the lorries come from. In that case, why do the Government intend to extend the scheme to local residents as well as foreigners? In view of the co-operation between EU member states in many areas, are not negotiations taking place on the matter? Can the Minister give a précis of the stage we have reached in achieving an agreement with our European partners on this problem? How will this clause be used in light of the real concerns about the growing problem of, for example, Travellers, many of whom do not have fixed addresses let alone roadworthy vehicles? Moreover, what exactly is meant by a ““satisfactory address””, and more to the point, how will the police decide whether it is satisfactory? That brings me back to my original point. If the police cannot take a deposit immediately, but still have to issue a notice to someone who will be on the ferry by the next night, it seems that the whole thing will be a complete waste of time. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is not the case, but perhaps he will enlighten me on these points. I beg to move.