|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Although no further bids can be accepted under the Crime Reduction Programme, other opportunities for CCTV funding may exist under the Communities Against Drugs or the Small Retailers in Deprived Areas initiatives.
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list (a) the closed circuit TV schemes that have been (i) funded and (ii) part-funded by the Government in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997, (b) the cost of each and (c) targets set to reduce crime under the schemes. 
Mr. Denham: Under Round 2 of the CCTV Challenge Competition (199697), the Home Office provided part funding of £9,500 for the Buckingham Town Centre CCTV system. The bid set out a target of a 40 per cent. reduction in vehicle-related crime and criminal damage in the area covered by the system.
8 Jan 2002 : Column: 782W
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many offenders were dealt with for supply offences in respect of Class A drugs in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997; 
However, data from the Home Office Court Appearances and Cautions Drugs Databases show that the number of persons in the Thames Valley Police force area who were dealt with for supply offences involving Class A drugs fell from 209 in 1997 to 191 in both 1998 and 1999. Data for 2000 are not yet available.
It is difficult to calculate a single percentage figure reflecting precisely what proportion of all crimes is drug-related since no statistical data are collected on offences that may have been committed due to drug taking. However, information is collected on the number of drug offences. Details of the number of persons convicted of or cautioned for drug offences and as a proportion of persons convicted of or cautioned for all indictable offences in the Thames Valley Police force area during the period 199599 are given in the table.
|Drug offences||All indictable offences||Drug offences as a percentage of all indictable offences|
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list (a) those schemes which have received funding under the Communities Against Drugs Initiative in the Buckingham constituency, (b) the amount received and (c) what targets have been set to reduce crime under the scheme. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Aylesbury Vale Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership was allocated £127,200 for Communities Against Drugs, in 200102. The table shows how the partnership is to spend this money:
|Police Proactive Unit||53,723|
|Drugs Outreach Service||52,500|
|Arrest Referral Project||5,000|
|Drug Market Analysis||5,000|
|Walton Court Project(62)||10,977|
(62) Part funding for CCTV and police/neighbourhood warden office
Communities Against Drugs activity, in Aylesbury Vale, is contributing to the achievement of the Government's drugs strategy targets, and local authority best value targets.
8 Jan 2002 : Column: 783W
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of (a) violent crime, (b) burglary and (c) vandalism in the Buckingham constituency were reported to the police in each year since 1997; and how many investigations resulted in a conviction. 
Details of some offences recorded by the police have been collected by police Basic Command Unit (BCU) since 1 April 1999. The table gives details of numbers of offences and detections for the Aylesbury Vale BCU. Details of criminal damage offences are not collected at BCU level.
|Burglary in a dwelling|
It should be noted that recorded violent crime is subject to changes in reporting and recording. The 2001 British Crime Survey found that in England and Wales as a whole, victimisation for the violent crime in the survey which is comparable to recorded crime decreased by 19 per cent. between the 1999 and 2000 calendar years, whereas comparable violent crime recorded by the police increased by 9 per cent. Violent crime recorded by the police may therefore not necessarily be a reflection of real changes in the level of victimisation.
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many youths under the age of 18 from the Buckingham constituency have been held in young offenders rehabilitation centres in each year since 1997. 
|Year||Receptions of under 18-year-old prisoners committed in Buckingham constituency(63)|
(63) Data are based on court of first committal
8 Jan 2002 : Column: 784W
John Barrett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many speed cameras have been installed, and how much has been spent on (a) installing and (b) maintaining and replacing speed cameras in each year since 1995; 
(3) what criteria the Government have set for money raised from fines arising from speed cameras being made available to meet the costs of that speed camera; 
(4) what the estimated financial saving is from the cost of road accidents which has arisen since the introduction of speed cameras in the UK; 
(5) what the percentage change is in the number of (a) serious and (b) fatal accidents at sites where speed cameras have been installed in the last two years; 
(6) how many (a) pedestrian, (b) cyclist, (c) motor cyclist, (d) car driver and (e) passenger lives are estimated to have been saved by the introduction of speed cameras; 
(7) if he will make a statement on the system for the funding of speed cameras in selected police areas; and what plans the Government have to extend the system; 
(8) what estimate the Government have made of the number of accidents caused by drivers cutting their speeds on approaching a signalled speed camera in the last five years; 
(9) what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of speed cameras on the use of police time; 
(10) how much money has been raised in fines for speeding related offences, detected by speed cameras, in each year since 1995; 
(11) what the average cost is of (a) setting up and (b) maintaining a speed camera; and what percentage of the maintenance and set up costs of speed cameras is covered by revenue raised from fines and other charges, made through speed related offences. 
Mr. Denham: The number of speed cameras in police force areas is not recorded centrally. The Association of Chief Police Officers estimates that there are about 4,500 speed camera sites in England and Wales. The average cost of purchasing and installing a fixed site speed camera is in the region of £30,000.
From April 2000 eight partnerships, comprising local police forces, local authorities, highways authorities and magistrates courts, have been piloting a new 'netting off' scheme . This allows the fixed penalty revenue from speed and red-light cameras to be re-invested to fund camera enforcement. The money raised is used to meet all the costs of purchasing, installing, operating and maintaining cameras.
8 Jan 2002 : Column: 785W
to the partnership's local authority, which acts as treasurer for the scheme, and distributes the funds to each of the partners on the basis of invoiced expenditure. Any revenue not used for camera enforcement goes to Her Majesty's Treasury. For areas outside the netting-off scheme all camera related costs are met by the police, local authorities and other agencies involved in the enforcement process. Proceeds go to Her Majesty's Treasury.
The results of the netting-off scheme demonstrate its value. Evidence from the pilot areas shows that motorists are slowing down in all areas where speed cameras are located, and not just in the immediate vicinity of camera sites. The first year report of the scheme shows that across the eight pilot areas as a whole the number of people killed or seriously injured dropped by 18 per cent. compared to the average of the previous three years. On average, the number of people killed or seriously injured at the camera sites is down by 47 per cent., and the average speed is down by 5.6 miles per hour. On the basis of historical trend data, we estimate that there were 109 fewer people killed or seriously injured as a result of the increased camera enforcement, although we cannot break this down by type of road user. We estimate that £27 million has been saved by the reduction of casualties and collisions at camera sites in the pilot areas when account is taken of ambulance and medical costs, lost output and the human costs of road accidents.
In addition, the evidence suggests that police operational priorities have not been distorted in any way. Automatic road safety cameras do not need police attendance and act as a continuous deterrent. They free up police resources to deal with other crimes and to undertake other traffic law enforcement activities. In the pilot areas, wider criminal activity has also been detected by chasing up non-payers caught on camera. The Association of Chief Police Officers strongly supports the netting-off scheme.
In August we announced the national roll-out of the netting-off scheme, and a further seven partnership areas joined the scheme in October 2001. A further 12 force areas have applied to join the scheme next year, and more are expected soon. All areas wishing to join the scheme are expected to do so over the next two to three years.
We have made it clear that cameras will only be placed at sites where there is a proven history of speed-related injuries or at accident hotspots where excess speed is a problem. There will be a requirement that all cameras are properly sign-posted and sufficiently visible, with their deployment well publicised locally. Camera use will be monitored to ensure that they help to reduce accidents. Those that do not will be moved to a more appropriate location or removed altogether. We shall be issuing new guidance to local authorities and police forces operating speed cameras outside the netting-off scheme, so that the requirements for other cameras mirror the netting-off rules.
The number of fixed penalties over the last five years for speeding offences where cameras have provided the evidence is given in the table. Automatic camera devices provided evidence from 1995 to 1998 and all camera types for 1999. Data for 2000 are not yet available. From 1995 to 1999 the fixed penalty charge for speeding offences was £40. All the money was paid to Her Majesty's Treasury.
8 Jan 2002 : Column: 786W
|Fixed penalties||Estimated revenue(64) £ million|
(64) 'Estimate' based on paid £40 fixed penalty charge from 1995 to 1999 for England and Wales.
(65) Automatic cameras until 1998, all camera types for 1999.
John Barrett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) speed-related and (b) other criminal prosecutions have been made by use of speed camera equipment in each year since 1995; and what the average cost of prosecution per speed camera is. 
Information is not collected centrally by my Department on whether speed camera evidence has been used in any other criminal prosecutions. Average cost figures for prosecutions per speed camera are also not available centrally.
(66) Automatic cameras until 1998, all camera types for 1999
(67) Paid, ie no further action
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|