| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.50 pm
Mr. Byers: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
I begin by addressing the point made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) mentioned at the end of his speech, about the involvement of the National Audit Office and the reasons why it has not reported on the November 1998 pre-Budget report. The reason is simple. As the code says, the Government will
The right hon. Member for Wells spun an interesting web of conspiracy about why the September unemployment figures were used for example, but that is a good illustration of how we are following the normal conventions. The pre-Budget report came out in November and used the most recent unemployment figures available, which were the September figures. That is the convention that has been used for many years--indeed, it was used by the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister--and we are simply continuing its use.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory:
Will the Chief Secretary give way?
Mr. Byers:
I shall give way, if there is time after I have answered some of the many points raised by right hon. and hon. Members in the debate. I understand that that is the purpose of a winding-up speech.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why we have a new format for public finances and was extremely critical on that point. The reason is simply that we are aligning our accounts with international and national definitions, and we make no apologies for doing so.
The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) started an interesting discussion about the distinction between current and capital expenditure. Given the way in which the Conservative Government slashed capital spending, I can understand why Conservative Members do not like a clear distinction to be made between the two forms of expenditure. The Labour Government are perfectly happy to have an analysis of spending divided into current and capital, because we believe that a real distinction can be made between the two. We are not hiding behind an artificial distinction, but being open and transparent about our spending in those areas.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) raised the subject of the euro and the estimates and projections that have been built into forecasts in the light of our possible entry into the single currency. It is interesting that Conservative Members find it difficult to speak in any debate on the economy without bringing us back to the euro and what they see as its disadvantages.
Let me make the Government's position clear: we shall decide whether or not to join the euro based on whether that is in the national interest, and subject to a vote of the British people. That is not the policy that the Conservatives have adopted, of ruling out entry for 10 years because of political dogma and in an effort to paper over the cracks in the Conservative party. That is not our approach. We shall decide in the national interest whether or not the euro is appropriate for the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) spoke for the Liberal Democrats. I accept the importance of transparency and openness and the code seeks to achieve those aims. It is especially important that we move to resource accounting and budgeting, and we intend to do so. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that public service agreements and the targets that they include will be a means by which the Government are judged on whether the new money that we are committing to crucial areas, such as hospitals and schools, is valued and brings something extra in terms of improving standards and raising the quality of provision. The agreements will be made public and Parliament and the public will be able to judge how well we deliver those ambitious but challenging targets.
This evening's short debate has revealed that, if there is a black hole, as the right hon. Member for Wells says that there is, it is a black hole in Conservative thinking on the economy. I regret that this evening has witnessed yet another attempt to talk down our economy and a failure to recognise its underlying strengths. There are now 400,000 more people in jobs than there were on 1 May last year and inflation is at its target of 2.5 per cent. Under the Labour Government, there will be no going back to the days of boom and bust. When the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) was a Treasury Minister, interest rates were at 15 per cent., inflation was at 10 per cent. and more than 1 million jobs were lost. We shall not turn back the clocks to those days. The code for fiscal stability will assist the Government in steering a course of stability for our economy, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 100 (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)),
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere):
I wish to present a petition from my constituents concerning the future of education in Borehamwood. This petition has attracted more than 2,000 signatures. It states:
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Jamieson.]
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford):
This has been an impressive week for the parliamentary deliberation of transport policy. I participated in Monday's debate on the Water Industry Bill but, sadly, we did not discuss the subject of water-borne transport. However, things looked up for transport on Tuesday when the main debate concerned the Road Traffic (NHS) Charges Bill and the Adjournment debate was about rail fares. The first debate today addressed the issue of road traffic reduction and the last debate is about the funding of speed cameras.
It has also been a good week for considering transport policy outside the Chamber. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister published his consultation document on road, use charges and workplace car park charges, and today, the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs considered the Government's integrated transport policy. By coincidence, one of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee was a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers. The assistant chief constable of Cleveland, Mr. Richard Brunstrom, gave evidence about the funding of speed cameras.
I aim to deliver two basic messages to the House and to the Minister who will respond to the debate. First, speed cameras contribute significantly to road safety; and, secondly, we cannot achieve the optimal coverage of road routes without more secure funding for speed cameras. I hope that, when the Minister responds to the debate, he will confirm the accuracy of the report that appeared in today's edition of the Evening Standard that the Home Office is convinced of the benefits of additional funding for speed cameras on Britain's roads.
In 1987, a previous Government set a target to achieve a one third reduction in road casualties by 2000. The House now awaits the Government's announcement in this Parliament of new national targets for road casualty reduction beyond 2000. In addition, we understand that the Government will soon issue a road safety strategy. I ask the Minister to confirm when we might expect those new targets and the Government's new road safety strategy. It is difficult to imagine that those documents will not contain some substantial news about speed cameras and the part that they will play in driving down the number of road casualties in this country. Indeed, speed cameras have a proven record of reducing road casualties.
In Staffordshire, where my constituency lies, in the three years since cameras were installed on the first 12 sites, there has been a dramatic reduction in crashes causing personal injury. In the three years before the cameras were installed, there were 599 accidents, compared with 472 accidents after their installation. That represents a 21 per cent. reduction. Applying the law of averages to the figures for the period before the cameras were installed, the reduction represents a saving of 10 lives on the road, 29 serious injuries in road crashes and 88 slight injuries. The financial benefit to the community from the subsequent lack of need for attention at sites by the police and the fire service and for health treatment of people injured in accidents is estimated to total £8 million.
It is significant that the severity of the crashes has decreased. Incidents of fatal and serious injury have fallen by 49 per cent. from 79 to 40. That reflects the slower speed of traffic at those sites.
What is the national picture? Where better to look for news on the success of speed cameras than in a report commissioned by the Home Office? In 1995, the Home Office commissioned a cost-benefit analysis of speed cameras and traffic lights from Andrew Hook, Jim Knox and David Portas. The report, which was issued in 1996, revealed that, in areas where speed cameras were used, accidents fell by 28 per cent. and speeds were reduced by an average of 4.2 mph. The fixed cost for installing cameras was £12,500 each and the average recurring expenditure for each camera was £8,500 per year.
The report went on to describe the wider benefits of the cameras, such as the release of police officers from speed enforcement duties for other useful duties and the detection not only of speeding offences but other crimes, including serious crimes. There is also anecdotal evidence that people in the local communities along the routes where the cameras are installed feel safer.
In addition to those benefits, ACPO--which has given evidence today to the Select Committee--estimates that there is a financial saving to the community of £8 billion a year from the wider use of speed cameras. ACPO argues that that translates into substantial savings in NHS treatment, which results in lower waiting lists. That is truly an example of the joined-up thinking in which the Government are interested.
On funding, the conclusion of the cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the Home Office said:
How much is the income from fines? About 250,000 people face speeding fines each year, and a fixed penalty is £40. If a quarter of a million people pay £40, the fine income is £10 million. However, some people go to court because their speeding is so serious that a fixed penalty is not appropriate. The average court fine is a little over £100, so each year the income from fines must be well above £10 million. The Evening Standard report gives a figure of £17 million.
A little-noticed fact about the speeders who go to court and face a fine is that the magistrates add to the fine an award of costs that the motorists must also pay. Those
costs are for the administration of bringing the case before the magistrates court, so there is nothing new in asking those who offend to pay administration costs in addition to the penalty. Might it not be a neat solution, as some police and councils argue, if the speeder were charged an administration fee in addition to the fine? I strongly agree with that approach.
I understand that the Government have been reviewing the funding of speed cameras for some time. Has the Minister any news of when an announcement might be expected? Some argue that the administration charge that I mentioned could be said to be an extra levy or another tax on motorists. That was certainly the approach taken in an article in The Sunday Telegraph last week. My response to that--perhaps the Minister will agree--is that that would certainly not be the case if best practice were strictly enforced.
I take best practice to mean that the amount of the administration fee is transparently all that is required to cover the administration costs but, more important, that the sites selected for the placing of speed cameras are selected by reference to criteria that relate exclusively to road casualty reduction and also that, when the radars are set for the cameras, they are set within strictly defined parameters. The cost-benefit analysis to which I have referred also mentions that point.
The report's conclusion states:
"invite the National Audit Office to audit changes in the key assumptions and conventions underpinning the fiscal projections".
There have been no such changes; therefore, there was no necessity to invite the NAO to carry out such an audit.
That the Code for Fiscal Stability, which was laid before this House on 3rd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
That the draft Police Act 1997 (Notification of Authorisations etc.) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 19th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
That the draft Police Act 1997 (Authorisation of Action in Respect of Property) (Code of Practice) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 19th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
That the draft Parole Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 17th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.--[Jane Kennedy.]
Question agreed to.
That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet:--
(1) on Monday 18th January at half-past Ten o'clock at New Parliament House, Edinburgh, to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;
(2) on Monday 1st February at half-past Ten o'clock at New Parliament House, Edinburgh, to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;
(3) on Monday 8th March at half-past Ten o'clock at New Parliament House, Edinburgh, to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee; and
(4) on Monday 22nd March at half-past Ten o'clock at New Parliament House, Edinburgh, to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee--[Jane Kennedy.]
11.55 pm
Petition of Save Our Schools Association
To lie upon the Table.
Declares that we are opposed to the closure of five schools in Borehamwood in the County of Hertfordshire as proposed by the Education Committee of Hertfordshire County Council.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to reject the proposed closure of these schools and demand that Hertfordshire County Council utilise the facilities and sound education that these five schools currently offer to the children of our town.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
11.56 pm
"The cost benefit analysis demonstrated that the use of . . . speed cameras generated substantial net benefits. It was also shown that the 'pay back' period for this technology was fairly short and that implementation has led to a reduction in the number of road traffic accidents at camera sites."
In Staffordshire, a good example of that is the good partnership working arrangements between the county council's highway authority and Staffordshire police, who are the enforcing agency. Both contribute to the costs of the speed cameras. That means that council tax payers are paying for the speed cameras. The budgets of the council and the police authority are under pressure. That is not unique to Staffordshire; it is typical of what is happening around the country. Staffordshire has identified further sites that would benefit from the installation of speed cameras by potentially reducing road casualties, but the limited funds restrain its ability to install the cameras to make the savings in road casualties. In the meantime, all the fines collected from speeding motorists go directly to the Treasury; none of the money goes towards the cost of installing and maintaining the speed cameras themselves.
"The study also generated a number of good practice guidelines which are presented in the main report. These suggest that the level of benefit derived from the use of cameras was linked to the manner in which they are deployed."
In other words, following best practice is the right thing to do, in terms not only of effectiveness in use but of not claiming extra money from people, over and above the penalty.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |