---

Met Office Key Performance Target 2004–05

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): The chief executive of the Met Office is responsible for providing meteorological and related environmental services, including climate change prediction, to a wide range of customers, including the armed forces, Government Departments and local authorities, civil aviation, shipping, emergency services, media, commerce, industry and the general public. The Met Office also undertakes research related to meteorology and climate.

Over the last 12 months the Met Office completed the challenging relocation of its headquarters and operations centre from Bracknell to Exeter. It was one of the biggest moves of IT capability undertaken in Europe, with no interruption in output or customer service. Some 1,000 staff transferred to Exeter in a project that was completed on time, to budget and against quality standards set. The move to new premises supports new ways of working; and an advanced
 
15 Jun 2004 : Column 27WS
 
technology and IT infrastructure, which will result in increased resilience and data reliability for the Met Office's customers.

To reflect the established strategy of investment and growth, the Met Office has adopted a new target relating to growth. A new target has also been included to ensure that the Met Office is prepared for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on 1 January 2005.

Previously the Met Office has had a target set against commercial contribution. This has become less relevant given that there is no longer a clear distinction between commercial work and public sector work. This target has therefore been discontinued.

Key target 1

To achieve an increase in value for the Numerical Weather Prediction Index (measuring forecasting skill) of at least 1.4 by 31 March 2005, from the level achieved at 31 March 2004.

Key target 2

To deliver an operating profit before strategic investments of at least £15.5 million in FY 2004–05, whilst making strategic investments of between £5.8 million and £6.8 million.

Key target 3

To achieve a return on capital employed of at least 3.5 per cent. in the FY 2004–05.

Key target 4

To achieve direct services growth in both Government and non-Government revenue of at least 4.1 per cent. in FY 2004–05 from the 2003–04 baseline, whilst maintaining direct services operating profit

Key target 5

To have in place, by 31 December 2004, basic procedures to answer requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and to review by 31 March 2005 the initial operation of the procedures to ensure that they are fit for purpose.

Key target 6

To develop, by March 2005, an efficiency measure which demonstrates the continuous improvement in value for money of the National Met Service (including the Public Met Service and relevant parts of the National Met Programme).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

UK Gas Quality Exercise

The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): On 8 January 2004, in a written ministerial statement, Official Report, columns 13–14WS, I launched the second phase of a three-phase strategy addressing the issue of future changes in the quality of gas imports to the United Kingdom. I can now inform the House that as part of this phase my officials have successfully let two separate research contracts to address specific technical aspects of the potential remedial measures being explored.

Phase 1 of the gas quality exercise, an independent scoping report commissioned by Government, was completed in November 2003. It confirmed that the Wobbe specification of certain anticipated gas imports to the UK is, before processing, likely to fall outside the current limits of the Health and Safety Executive's Gas Safety (Management) Regulations (GS(M)R). In light
 
15 Jun 2004 : Column 28WS
 
of the expected increase in the UK's dependence on imported gas I launched phase 2 to identify an appropriate policy response.

As stated in previous announcements, our broad policy options appear to be: the "default" option, to retain the current gas quality specifications, or to change the current specifications to more closely reflect the expected quality of future gas supply. Two separate research contracts have recently been let, under a competitive tendering process, to Advantica Limited, to address specific technical issues in connection with these two options. The first will identify the costs, benefits and risks of the options for processing future gas imports to ensure that they comply with existing quality specifications. The latter is the pilot for an exercise aimed at understanding the likely costs, benefits and risks of adapting the UK's gas appliance population to ensure continued safe operation under the delivery of gas with different quality specifications.

I can tell the House now that there is no question of the Government recommending to the HSC, who are responsible for the GS(M)R, to implement an early change in the UK's gas quality regulations. The effective choice, for consideration in due course when the results of the research exercises are apparent, is expected to be between recommending no change at all versus the option of making no immediate change but implementing transitional measures that would provide the flexibility to introduce a change in the gas quality specifications at a much later date, perhaps towards the end of the next decade.

My officials, together with HSE and Ofgem, will be working over the coming months to prepare the ground for a consultation exercise. Once this work is complete I shall make a further statement to the House.

This exercise has been developed by the DTI as a member of the sustainable energy policy network (SEPN), which is working to deliver the Energy White Paper "Our Energy Future—Creating a Low Carbon Economy".

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Safety Cameras

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): An independent review of the first three years of the safety camera programme's operation 2000–01 to 2002–03, carried out by University College London and PA Consulting Group which I am publishing today, concluded that safety cameras significantly reduced speeding and collisions, and had cut deaths and serious injuries at camera sites by 40 per cent.

These findings are based on the large body of evidence now available from three years of the programme's operation, and the 24 police and local highway authority safety camera partnerships which were participating in the national scheme by 2002–03, covering around half of the police authority areas of England, Wales and Scotland.

I have placed a copy of the UCL—PA report in the Library. It will also be available on my Department's website.
 
15 Jun 2004 : Column 29WS
 

The report contains details of each partnership's audited costs and receipts from fixed fines for 2002–03. I have also placed in the Library copies of the English and Welsh partnerships' responses to my Department earlier this year, confirming that they are operating in accordance with the rules and guidance for the programme.

The sole objective of safety cameras is to save lives and reduce injuries—as it has always been, since the previous Government provided for the use of cameras in the 1991 Road Traffic Act.

Road safety is a Government priority. Despite the UK having one of the best safety records among major countries, some 3,500 people are still killed and another 35,000 seriously injured each year on the roads. This level of deaths and injury is not acceptable, and excessive and inappropriate speed is a significant element in the problem. People who drive 25 per cent. faster than the average for a road have six times higher risk of collision. Excessive speed is a contributory factor in over a quarter of fatal collisions. Moreover, speed makes any collision worse, whatever its cause. Pedestrians hit by cars travelling at 20 mph have a 21.2 per cent. risk of being killed; a 20 per cent. risk at 30 mph; and a 90 per cent. risk of being killed at 40 mph.

Safety cameras have a key role in tackling the problem. They cannot be the only way of helping to reduce speed, but they do make a major contribution. The key findings of the UCL—PA report are that:

there was a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites ( "KSI casualties"), over and above the UK's general downward trend in killed or seriously injured casualties.

the percentage reduction equated to 870 fewer people per year being killed or seriously injured at the 24 camera sites—including 105 fewer deaths per year;

within the overall reduction in killed or seriously injured casualties, there was a 35 per cent. reduction in pedestrians being killed or seriously injured;

there was a 33 per cent. reduction in overall collisions involving personal injury at camera sites—fatal, serious or slight—("Personal Injury Collisions"—PICs), again over and above the general downward trend in PICs. This equated to 4,030 fewer PICs per year for the 24 Partnership areas;

the benefit to society of the avoided deaths and injuries in 2002–03 was £221 million, based on the standard Government values for road injuries—over four times the £54 million resource cost of the programme in 2002–03;

there was a 32 per cent. reduction in the number of vehicles breaking the speed limit at camera sites. Average vehicle speed across all new sites fell by 7 per cent. overall;

there was a larger, 43 per cent. reduction in excessive speeding—vehicles doing 15 mph or more above the limit;

there was a clear correlation between the level of speed reduction at sites, and the level of reduction in collisions and casualties;

independent research showed a high level of public support for the use of cameras. 79 per cent. of people agreed with the statement "The use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties".

This evidence of the road safety benefits of safety cameras shows why local residents and pedestrians value them strongly, as hon. Members know from contact with constituents. The report also shows that the majority of motorists also support cameras. They
 
15 Jun 2004 : Column 30WS
 
too are threatened by thoughtless drivers who are prepared to ignore speed limits and go through red lights.

As well as the national results, the UCL—PA report also includes estimates for the percentage reduction in KSI casualties and PIC collisions for the individual partnership areas. As is to be expected, partnerships' figures vary—partly reflecting their different mix of urban and rural sites and different camera types. Also, collisions are by nature random events and their incidence varies from year to year. So the report should not be regarded as providing a "league table".

We already expect partnerships to keep their camera sites under review and up to date with changing local circumstances. My Department will give guidance to partnerships on particular issues to consider in preparing and submitting their operational cases for the period ahead—in particular looking at camera sites where a good safety record has been achieved, to assess whether they need to be retained for maintaining effective compliance, or whether the site can now be safely stood down—and also at sites where there appears to be a continuing problem of high numbers of collisions notwithstanding the use of cameras, and assessing whether further or different action should be taken, including for example road improvements or engineering measures, traffic calming measures, road safety education or information programmes. In making these assessments, we will of course expect partnerships to take account of the views of both local communities, and those of road users.

The UCL—PA report shows the high level of public support for safety cameras. An essential element in this is the availability of full information on camera sites. Partnerships provide a wide range of information, presented in a range of ways.

But hon. Members and others with an interest in the safety camera programme are also interested in being able to access core information, set out on a common basis, covering all partnerships' sites nationwide.

Earlier this year I asked my Department to review the operation of cameras at each site across each partnership area. Drawing on information provided by the partnerships, my Department has prepared tables covering each of the 35 partnerships in England and Wales now participating in the programme. Copies will be placed in the Library, and will be available on the Department's website. The tables provide information on the location of sites, the reason for their establishment, and summary "before and after" data on the numbers of people killed or seriously injured in collisions since the partnership joined the programme and up to 2002–03, including part-year data for sites which were established in the course of 2002–03. The tables will be updated each year.

In total for England and Wales, at the end of March 2004, there were 5,215 safety cameras, comprising:

2,364 fixed speed camera sites, at which cameras operate continuously or from time to time;

2,153 locations at which mobile speed cameras are deployed from time to time;

698 red light camera sites at which cameras operate continuously or from time to time.

 
15 Jun 2004 : Column 31WS
 

These tables provide a full picture of the safety camera sites currently in operation. Hon. Members with questions about any camera in their constituency should contact the partnership concerned.

Around half of the camera sites listed in the tables had been established prior to partnerships joining the national programme, under the guidance issued in 1992, in Department of Transport Circular 1/92 "Use of Technology for Traffic Enforcement: Guidance on Deployment". This guidance did not set any quantified collision criteria, asking only that partnerships should

"have evidence that all additional cameras have been deployed in areas where historically there have been a high incidence of speed related collisions."

The Government did not regard this generalised guidance which we inherited as adequate, and we have progressively developed detailed rules, guidance and criteria for the setting up and operation of cameras under the national programme, as currently contained in the handbook of rules and guidance for the operation of the national road safety programme for England and Wales, 31 October 2003, a copy of which is in the Library.

Alongside setting the quantified criteria for site locations, the handbook of rules and guidance for the programme recognises the independent operational discretion which police forces must have to enforce the law, and provides also for "exception sites"—mainly "community concern" sites where there is evidence of speeding causing road safety concerns to local residents. The operation of exception sites is now subject to a maximum of 15 per cent. of a partnership's total "camera time". Exception sites do not require Government approval. But for information, the tables include fixed exception camera sites. Exception mobile sites are often temporary, and are not included in the tables. Information on exceptional sites is available from partnerships.

The rules on camera sites' visibility and conspicuity that the Government introduced in 2001 apply to all speed cameras, including exception sites. The police however need the discretion in exceptional circumstances to mount "covert" operations to deal with exceptional problems. The police advice that the use of this discretion is rare—fewer than 10 instances a year.

We encourage lower speed limits where these are appropriate in urban areas and in the vicinity of schools, including 20 mph zones, which have proved very successful in reducing collisions and injuries. For rural areas, the Government recommend that 30 mph should be the norm in villages. The current guidance to local authorities on local speed limits is being revised and updated, covering both urban and rural roads. We will consult road users and other stakeholders shortly on a revised circular advising on the setting of local speed limits.

Penalties need to fit the crime. There is a significant problem with people prepared to exceed limits seriously and recklessly. Following the review of road traffic penalties, we made a commitment to create an aggravated offence to deal with these people, with a new higher fixed penalty when the legislative opportunity arises. This reflects serious public concern.
 
15 Jun 2004 : Column 32WS
 

At the same time, many drivers feel that the present fixed three point minimum penalty, laid down in primary legislation is not necessarily the most appropriate or effective way to deal with less severe speeding. We therefore propose that, when the opportunity arises, legislation will reduce the minimum penalty to two points, with the detailed provisions for the offences to which two point and higher penalties would apply to be set in statutory orders. These would be subject to both formal public consultation, and to affirmative resolution in Parliament, to ensure full discussion with motoring organisations, road safety groups and others with an interest.

Meantime, a number of police forces have been developing and offering drivers the option of speed awareness courses as an alternative to the formal legal processes, where this looks to be a more effective remedy. And at the national level, the Association of Chief Police Officers has announced that it is putting in place arrangements for a national programme for the use of speed awareness courses, which will ensure consistent and rigorous standards of courses. The Government welcome the police's wide thinking on the best way to achieve the result which everyone wants to see—that of drivers and riders with changed, safer and more considerate attitudes.

---