Road Safety Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 37:"Page 11, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 on page 12." The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 37, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 41. We welcome the clause but, once again and as   always, only if the powers are fairly used. I am trying to elicit from the Minister—who is very straightforward in his replies so I am sure I will get it—a little more detail of how the clause will work in practice. As we see it, proposed new Section 90D would enable the police or vehicle examiners to prohibit the movement of the vehicle if the deposit is not paid immediately and this would continue in force until the owner pays. What would happen if individuals were unable to pay immediately—always presuming that the legislation is there to ensure that they are able to pay immediately—either through not having sufficient funds on them at the time or simply through not having sufficient funds? In those circumstances, the vehicle in question would be taken away and considerable sums in removal and storage charges would then be run up to such an extent that the costs might actually be greater than any fine. Surely there must be some flexibility in the system to allow a person to come back the next day and pay the fine when he has managed to get the cash together. What opportunity will the police have to use their own discretion and judgment in such matters? How much is it anticipated this additional bureaucracy will cost? Will it be self-financing? If it is, once again we are in danger of the scheme being used as income generation; if it is not, there will be a suspicion that it is. Amendment No. 41 is intended to ensure that any   removal direction imposed on the motorist is reasonable. It is a wide clause. I refer the Committee to page 12 of the Bill, where it states that a constable has the right to prohibit a person from driving if he has   been stopped and fails to make a payment. I can understand why that may be necessary, but the constable can prohibit the person from driving on a road,"““any vehicle of which the person was in charge at the time of the offence by giving to the person notice in writing of the prohibition””." However, the provision goes on to state:"““A constable or vehicle examiner may by direction in writing require the person to remove the vehicle to which the prohibition relates . . .  to such place and subject to such conditions as are specified in the direction””." We can understand why this may be necessary. It could well be that the vehicle in its position is causing an obstruction. However, when the police make such a direction, it should be fair and it should not directly result in the person who has committed an offence being subjected to a huge cost. I am thinking of a scenario in which a policeman tells the person in charge of the vehicle to remove it to, say, an inner London car compound which happens to be next to a perfectly acceptable car park where the charges are £10   a day, whereas the compound charges £80 a day for the storage of vehicles. If the police officer were to make such a direction, the driver who had committed the offence could face storage charges of up to five times the fixed penalty that he has not paid. Would that be reasonable? Many questions are raised by the whole issue of deposits and my next one I have asked before. It concerns the costs of the bureaucracy and people’s ability to go and collect the money if we are now satisfied that they will be able to pay the police directly. Are we to have visions of the Prime Minister’s last frolic into this area, where it was suggested that people should be taken down to the local cash machine to collect money in order to pay fines for hooliganism. If you are going to have to pay a deposit, access to money is another important area in terms of fairness and how it will be managed. I have made our position clear. I beg to move.