Road Safety Bill [HL]

I am finding the debate extremely useful. I am grateful to the Minister for giving us the Government’s thinking on the issue. At Second Reading, he was confident that the Bill did not ban detectors; now he is confident that it does, but that that is appropriate. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said that an alert driver would not speed. I disagree. If he speeds and is not alert, he is a real danger to himself and other road users. When the noble Viscount does his commentary drive with the police, he will have to point out a change in road surface—he must be that alert and observant. The real danger is a speeding driver who is not alert—not sufficiently alert to notice a speed camera. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, talked about compensation. Absolutely not. Those devices have always been questionable and on borrowed time. I hope that the Minister does not consider any compensation schemes for them. I am not overly worried about the banning of detection devices. I am really interested in an electronic solution to help motorists comply with the speed limit and drive safely. The Minister himself said that there was no limit to what technology could do. My last response is to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. He and I may join forces and meet in the middle, perhaps by proposing at a later stage that we can allow GPS devices that squeak if you are exceeding the speed limit for the area but ban GPS devices that tell you where the camera is. We want people to adhere to the speed limit as soon as they enter the zone. I am grateful for all contributions to the debate and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 63 to 66 not moved.] Clause 16 agreed to.