Road Safety Bill [HL]

I had hoped that I had covered most of those points in earlier debates, but perhaps not with sufficient accuracy. I will do my best to be precise on this occasion. The purpose of the deposit scheme is clearly set out in Clause 10. It enables officers to demand a deposit to guarantee equal treatment of everyone who breaks the law. I think that   the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, quoted the number of people—a very considerable number—who fail to meet their fines and effectively abscond with the vehicle and return to the country of origin. That is why we are out to remedy an abuse by making sure everyone is treated equally. That requires, first, the right and powers of the officer concerned to enforce a deposit. If it cannot be paid at that point, a little discretion may be exercised, but the vehicle does not move until the deposit is paid. If the vehicle moves, it will go into storage, as happens now. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is right. Storage costs mount up. They are not inconsiderable. However, if the case were dismissed, it would not be   by a decision just of the enforcing officer. By definition it would go to court. If it were rescinded, it would be for the court authorities, the judge or magistrate, to make a decision on costs. Should an extraordinary miscarriage of justice have occurred through a wrong identification of the person responsible, not only would the individual go free, but almost certainly no charge would be made on the company that owned the lorry. That would not be fair. It is where appropriately society bears the costs of dealing justly with people. If they are found innocent, by definition they ought not to bear excessive costs. I   think that is the answer to the question put by the noble Earl. However, in most cases officers will not make mistakes; quite the opposite. They will have identified that an offence has been committed and will expect the money to be paid. If it is not forthcoming, they will want reassurances either that they can get the money because the address given is significant enough for the penalty to be pursued effectively and the issue is thus resolved subsequently, or if they are uncertain about the address and suspect that it may be part of a pattern of absconding scot free by not meeting the obligations of the offence, at that point they will take action. If no money is available, the vehicle will go into store. It is then the responsibility of the driver and the people who own his vehicle. The costs would accrue to them accordingly. So I do not think that there is a problem either in principle or in practice on how the system is to be enforced.