---

 
18 May 2004 : Column 803
 

House of Commons

Tuesday 18 May 2004

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Camera Safety Partnerships

1. Mr Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): Whether he has discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer ring-fencing revenue raised from camera safety partnerships for road safety purposes. [173493]

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The rules of the safety camera programme provide that the resources from speeding and jumping traffic lights are ring-fenced and can be applied solely to safety cameras, enforcement and information.

Mr. Mackay: Surely the Secretary of State realises that that is not good enough. First, speed cameras are raising huge sums of extra money as an alternative form of taxation. Secondly, they are not improving road safety. Thirdly, would it not be better if the ring-fencing, if he needs it, included driver instruction?

Mr. Darling: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, the vast majority of the money that is raised goes back into the cost of installing and operating the cameras. I think that I am right in saying that about £17 million, which is a small fraction of what the Department spends, goes back to the Treasury. The important point is that all the evidence says that speed cameras do reduce the number of serious injuries. The right hon. Gentleman can shake his head if he wants to, but it is worth reflecting on the fact that the last independent study that was carried out showed a 35 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured. I would have thought that the time had come when road safety should not be a political football, but an issue that unites all Members of the House in ensuring that fewer people are killed and seriously injured on our roads.

Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): Some parts of the country, such as Staffordshire, have speed awareness courses for offenders who exceed the speed limit by only a small margin. The running costs of those courses are paid by the offenders themselves, but they involve some
 
18 May 2004 : Column 804
 
set-up costs and a little bit of capital. Would it not make sense to allow money from speeding fines to pay for such courses to be available all over the country?

Mr. Darling: I am not sure that I would want to do anything that actively encouraged people to think about collecting fines for the purpose of generating income. As I have said on countless occasions, the best speed camera is one that does not collect a single penny in income because it has persuaded people to slow down.

The House will be aware that the Government shortly want to consult on a more variable scheme that allows fewer points to be imposed where someone is found to have gone marginally over the speed limit, with perhaps a greater penalty if they drive far too fast. One of the options that we want to consider with the Association of Chief Police Officers is whether, as an alternative to fines, we could introduce driver awareness courses. The objective must be to get across to people that speed kills. A person who is hit by a car going at 40 mph has a 90 per cent. chance of being killed. We need to get that lesson across to people. This should not be about raising money, but about encouraging people to drive safely.

Mr. Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): This is a red letter day for Transport questions. For five months, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), the roads Minister, has stood at the Dispatch Box during Transport questions rubbishing Conservative policies on speed cameras; now, the Government have started to adopt them. On 21 April, we produced a 10-point plan for road safety. Two days ago, the Government announced that they would introduce variable penalty points for those caught speeding by cameras—number four of our 10 points. We welcome the Government's conversion. If the Secretary of State adopts one of our policies each time he has to face Transport questions, the world will become a better and safer place. Let me allow him to remove any remaining doubts that all he was doing on Sunday was producing a press release—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Transport questions, and he must put a question.

Mr. Green: Can the Secretary of State tell us when the consultation period on this policy shift will end; and will he commit himself to introducing these changes before the end of this year?

Mr. Darling: What my colleague, the roads Minister, said was that at the beginning of this year the hon. Gentleman implied that some 4,000 cameras were in the wrong place. So far, as at 11 o'clock this morning, we have yet to hear from him about one such site.

In relation to our announcement over the weekend, there is limited value in trading political points as to who thought of what idea first, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to do that, I draw his attention to the fact that of his 10 points, four were already Government policy. As regards the variable system of penalty points, the Government first canvassed that idea in 2002.

However, in the light of the fact that every day 10 people are killed or seriously injured on our roads, would it not be better if we looked at measures that
 
18 May 2004 : Column 805
 
improved road safety, including reducing the speed at which people travel? I would have thought that we now have the opportunity to reach an all-party consensus in relation to such matters. If improvements can be made to speed cameras, let us make them. In addition to that, I hope next month to publish details of all speed camera sites in the country so that people can see why they are there and the difference that they are making.

I also hope to publish a further independent study, and we shall wait and see what progress has been made. However, I am optimistic that the campaign to reduce speed is having an effect.

Mr. Green: The Secretary of State did not answer the question about whether he would commit himself to doing anything about the matter. Of course we all want consensus—that is why I welcome the fact that he is adopting some of my policies. What does he say to the Police Federation, whose chairman said last week:

"I believe some cameras are there as a revenue generator. I think police get the blame for that. I think it has been quite destructive."?

Not only Conservative Members but the police, who have to enforce the traffic laws, say that the Government are wrong. They call for an audit of the position of every camera and we agree. Since the right hon. Gentleman is in the mood to adopt our policies, will he adopt the proposals for an audit of every camera position and end his current stance, which is dangerously damaging to relations between the police and the general public? He should know that, without the support of the police, he will not get better road safety in this country. He says that he is in favour of better road safety—will he adopt more of our sensible policies to achieve it?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman seems more concerned about what he regards as his policies than road safety. On the matters that he raised—inasmuch as I could discern them—we propose, as I said, to consult about a variable points system. We will do that next month and I hope that we can introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity.

The representative of the Police Federation said that some motorists, not the police generally, believe that the cameras are revenue generators. As I said previously, in the light of the controversy, I asked the Department to examine every site in the country with a view to publishing details of each camera site so that people can see why the cameras were put there and the difference that they make. I have no doubt that it will be necessary for me to ask the local partnerships to consider whether cameras should be present on some sites or whether they should be moved elsewhere. However, the vast majority save lives. It is interesting that—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the Secretary of State and emphasise to Front-Bench Members that we have spent 10 minutes on one question. I must move on to Question 2.

Rail Passenger Services

2. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): What assessment has been made of the role for the public sector in the provision of rail passenger services. [173494]
 
18 May 2004 : Column 806
 

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): As I said in my statement to the House on 19 January, a key principle of the review is that the public and private partnership is right for the railways and will continue.

David Taylor : The Select Committee on Transport is disappointed in the Government's continued, apparently ideological insistence that the private sector is the only way in which rail passenger services can be provided. Will the Secretary of State explain why, if the public sector can be shown to be safer, more efficient and cheaper, it should not run rail passenger services? As a relatively dogma-free Minister, will he consider the Committee's call for a rethink about the option of retaining South Eastern Trains in public ownership?

Mr. Darling: On ideology, it is a big mistake to assume that everything that the public sector did on the railways was good and everything that the private sector has done is bad. My hon. Friend mentioned safety. The safety record of the railways has been improving year after year for several years.

Let me give hon. Members one reason why I believe that the public and private sectors should operate together. The private sector brings in approximately £11 million every day. Without the private sector, the public sector would have to find that money. I strongly believe that the public and private sectors can work together. That happens in many parts of the world. In this country, the relationship is not right and that is why I set up the review.

Mr. Archie Norman (Tunbridge Wells) (Con): The Secretary of State will know that the publicly-owned South Eastern Trains has performed reasonably well since it came into being under the stewardship of Michael Holden. Does he know that there are sinister rumours of a possible delay in the franchising process because of the disputes about timetabling in mid-Kent? Does he agree that the franchising process is already inordinately long and creates enormous uncertainty for investment, passengers and staff? Will he commit himself to doing everything possible to ensure that the process progresses according to the original timetable?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Strategic Rail Authority is consulting on the Kent franchise at the moment, and it is important that that consultation tries to build as much consensus as possible. He will also know that many people in Kent have reservations about what is being proposed and are making strong representations about it. We need to get this right, and I agree with him that the objective must be to ensure that the franchising process is completed as quickly as possible, so that we can have a degree of certainty. I do not think that anything we are doing in the review will affect the Kent franchise; it certainly will not hold it up. What is needed is for the review to reach a conclusion as to what trains are necessary and when they ought to run.

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): Is the Minister aware that, according to a written answer from his Department, it is estimated that £3.85 million—nearly £4 million—is to be spent on tendering the
 
18 May 2004 : Column 807
 
integrated Kent franchise to facilitate the privatisation of South Eastern Trains? How much money has been spent on negotiating new passenger franchises since 1997? Would not that money have been better spent on direct investment in the rail services, rather than on wasteful franchises such as these?

Mr. Darling: No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. While there are undoubtedly examples of franchising, and some franchisees, not having been as successful as they should have been, other examples show a better quality of service and better provision for passengers than there was in the past. I am happy to defend the fact that there is inevitably some expenditure involved in the franchising process. I strongly believe that having both private and public sector involvement in the railways is good, but it is important to ensure that the right framework and relationships exist, which is what the review process is designed to facilitate.

John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): I am sure that the Minister is aware that, since the South Eastern Trains franchise became an SRA company, there has been a 9 per cent. improvement in services. We have already heard that the proposals for the integrated Kent franchise have been widely condemned by passenger groups, Transport for London and councils. Will he not therefore accept the value of keeping that franchise in the public sector as a comparator of the public sector versus the private sector, especially as it seems rather a waste of £4 million to provide a franchise that does not meet passengers' aspirations?

Mr. Darling: As I said when we discussed South Eastern Trains at last month's Transport questions, there has been an improvement in performance right across the train operating companies in the south-east—not just in South Eastern Trains, which, as the hon. Gentleman says, is now being operated on behalf of the SRA, but in the companies in the private sector as well. Naturally, I am very glad that performance is improving. Indeed, at present, there are quite significant improvements in performance. The job for the railways is to ensure that that continues.

Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab): I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is aware that the recent report from the Transport Select Committee comments that:

"Nearly a third of the franchises were no longer expected to function in the entrepreneurial, risk-taking way that was one of the fundamental justifications for private sector involvement in running train services, but simply to function as fee paid agents of the SRA".

What, therefore, is the justification for these services still being run by the private sector?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right, as was the Select Committee, to draw attention to the fact that, in 1995 and 1996, the then Government were anxious to get the whole franchise system away as quickly as possible. It is clear to me and everyone else that some of the deals struck at that time were not good value for the taxpayer. It is well known that the promises made in 1995 and 1996 by one or two franchises in particular seem to have been built on wildly optimistic
 
18 May 2004 : Column 808
 
assumptions. It does not follow from that, however, that having the private sector involved through franchises is wrong. Far from it: I believe that they can bring significant improvements, in terms of both financial discipline—and, therefore, costs—and customer service. There are many examples round the world of the public and private sectors working together. What was wrong in this country was that the model established during the privatisation in the early 1990s was flawed, and that is what we are putting right now.

Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): Does the Secretary of State agree that the public sector might enable more coaches to be run on trains? Is he concerned that c2c is proposing to redeploy five of its four-coach class 357 trains to a different line, resulting in a phasing out of the 12-coach trains on the c2c line, which is already impossibly overcrowded? Does he think that the public sector could do anything about that?

Mr. Darling: I had not realised that the hon. Gentleman was so hostile to the private sector; perhaps he should have a word with some of his colleagues. Whoever is operating the trains, whether in the public or private sector, will redeploy them from one service to another. That is what happens when one is running a railway. I do not know why c2c has decided to redeploy these five trains, but I will look into it. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman looks in the back pages of Rail magazine—the trainspotters' guide to where every carriage is—he will find out where they have gone.

---