Road Safety Bill [HL]

We have had an interesting debate. Generally, there seems to be a consensus in support of the thrust of what I am proposing if not the wording of the amendment. I know of cases where important meetings to discuss vulnerable children or elderly people have not taken place because those who were due to attend those meetings were not able to communicate a quick message that they could not reach the relevant meeting in time as they were stuck in a traffic jam. That is not a once-a-year experience; it is more than a once-a-week experience for people who live not necessarily in rural Essex but on the A12, A11, M11 or M25. At times you will be stuck for 20 minutes or so unable to move. Most people doing that are not out on a drinking spree or for leisure. A lot of people are doing valuable work and supporting the community. I met a Minister this morning—we were talking about vulnerable children—and I know that she would not want me to say ““We cannot support half of the children because they are stuck in a traffic jam and cannot let people know where they are going to be””. It is a part of joined-up government and supporting our society, in a way. Although we are talking about the Road Safety Bill, we have to have common sense and enable people to get on in supporting the community. I hope the Minister will do as he says, and review this very seriously before Report stage. I sensed there was a lot of support around the House for what I was trying to say. With that, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 21 agreed to. Clause 22 [Breach of duty to give information as to identity of driver etc.]: