Road Safety Bill [HL]

First of all, I wish to allay the noble Baroness’s suspicions: this provision is not about revenue raising; it is about an appropriate sanction to ensure compliance with the law. I cannot be drawn on the amount of the deposit because it would cross neither our mind nor that of any noble Lord concerned with legislation to include such a figure in a Bill. First, it is far too detailed, and, secondly, we do not know how long the currency of the figure would last against the background that we expect the legislation to be in place for a number of years. I am not to be drawn on the issue of the deposit but I shall seek to give the noble Baroness another assurance. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform viewed the matter as so important that we should undertake to make it the subject of secondary legislation through an affirmative order. I am happy to confirm that we will comply with that recommendation. When we debate the affirmative order we will have the opportunity to debate the appropriateness of the figure at which the deposit should be set. In the previous debate I wanted to reassure noble Lords that we intend the legislation to work, and it is therefore necessary to set the deposit at a level that results in compliance with the requirements. I also confirmed that the legislation contains the innovative but nevertheless clear principle that enforcement officers would have the right to enforce the deposit and   take cash for it. I even assured the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on his question whether there was any reason, if people did not comply with the law and a vehicle was stopped, the driver could legitimately go on his way. We are reasonably watertight on the issue, save for the figure of the deposit. That is a subject for extensive consultation and for an instrument to be laid before this House and the other place. We will have plenty of time to discuss the appropriateness of the figure.