---

16 Jul 2004 : Column 1391W—continued

Heavy Goods Vehicles

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the Answer of 14 June 2004, Official Report, column 697W, on heavy goods vehicles, when he intends to announce who will carry out an updated cost-benefit analysis for making ECE 104 compliant retro-reflective tape mandatory in the UK; when he expects this study to be published; and if he will make a statement. [184300]

Mr. Jamieson: My Department expects to announce who will carry out the cost benefit analysis, during September once the tendering process has been completed. We expect that the results of the study will be published by the end of February 2005.

The Department will then consult interested parties about the German proposal to mandate UNECE 104 tape in UNECE Regulation 48 for all new vehicles over 12 tonnes.

Rail Network (London)

Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the cost of maintaining London's rail network is expected to be in each of the next five years; [184284]

(2) how much was spent on the maintenance of London's overground rail network in (a) 1997, (b) 1999, (c) 2001, (d) 2003 and (e) 2004. [184287]

Mr. McNulty: Network Rail advises that this information is not available in the form requested.

Road Accidents

Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the (a) number and (b) proportion of road casualties in crashes involving (i) a road traffic offence, (ii) unlicensed driver, (iii) untaxed vehicle and (iv) no valid insurance in the last year for which figures are available. [183547]

Mr. Jamieson: The information is not available in the form required.

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets he has set to reduce road fatalities and injuries among children. [184307]

 
16 Jul 2004 : Column 1392W
 

Mr. Jamieson: Our road safety strategy, "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone", published in March 2000, set a challenging target of reducing child road deaths or serious injuries by 50 per cent., compared with the baseline average for 1994–98, by 2010.

"Road Casualties Great Britain 2003: Main Results", published on 24 June 2004, shows that we are making excellent progress. Child deaths or serious injuries were down 40 per cent. from their baseline; over three-quarters of the way towards our 50 per cent. target.

Mr. Norman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what data his Department has collected on the comparative performance of emergency services and other Government agencies in reducing transport delays after road traffic incidents. [182419]

Mr. Jamieson: Data are not available centrally on the performance of emergency services in reducing transport delays after road traffic incidents.

Highways Agency Traffic Officers will be responsible for clearing incidents and getting traffic moving. The success of the initiative will be evaluated against a number of criteria, including: incident detection time; incident response time; clearance times following incidents; incident related congestion; and road safety benefits.

Mr. Norman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what data the Department has collated on the performance of (a) emergency services and (b) other Government agencies in reducing transport delays after road traffic incidents. [182787]

Mr. Jamieson: I refer the hon. Member to my answer given earlier today (UIN 182419).

Road and Rail Safety

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent in 2003 to improve safety on (a) the road network operated by the Highways Agency and (b) the passenger rail network. [182878]

Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 8 July 2004]: There is a safety element to all of the Highways Agency's projects. The safety component of its £1.7 billion budget for 2003–04 was not costed separately.

Safety spend on the passenger rail network is built into budget heads such as infrastructure or staff training. It is therefore not possible to separately identify the spend on rail safety.

Mr. Kidney: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements his Department makes for the education of children on matters of road safety; and what funding is made available to support such education. [183481]

Mr. Jamieson: Local authorities have statutory responsibility for road safety, including education, training and publicity programmes for children. They develop programmes locally, drawing also on materials produced centrally by my Department. These programmes are aimed at children themselves, and at their parents and carers. We conduct national publicity campaigns, such as the hedgehog commercials. Schools can also provide road safety education and we produce materials for them, such as lesson plans.
 
16 Jul 2004 : Column 1393W
 

The Department's publicity programme has a budget of some £2.53 million in 2004/05. Local authorities and schools can rely on revenue support from central Government and revenue raised locally to fund their programmes. The Department also funds development. "Kerbcraft"—a method of child pedestrian training successfully piloted in Scotland—is being tested throughout England. £9 million is being made available to selected local authorities.

Our national target for child road safety is to achieve a 50 per cent. reduction in children killed and seriously injured by 2010, compared to the 1994–98 average. We are making good progress, with a reduction of 40 per cent. achieved by the end of 2003.

Speed Cameras

Tom Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reviews take place and how often, on the siting of speed cameras; who conducts them; and if he will make a statement. [184117]

Mr. Jamieson: In his statement to the House on the Safety Camera Programme on 15 June, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport noted that the Government expect Safety Camera Partnerships of police and local highway authorities to keep camera sites under review and up to date with local circumstances. He indicated that the Department will give guidance to partnerships on the operational cases they submit each year, asking them in particular to look at camera sites where a good safety record has been achieved, to assess whether cameras need to be retained, and also to look at sites where there appears to be a continuing problem of collisions notwithstanding the use of cameras, to assess whether further or different action should be taken—taking into account the views of both local communities and those of road users.

Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many speed cameras are in operation in the London borough of Havering. [184245]

Mr. Jamieson: Havering is covered by the London Safety Camera Partnership. The list of approved safety camera sites operated by each Partnership, including London, was published on 15 June, and a copy placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the money raised in fines from speed cameras in Havering has been distributed since their introduction. [184248]

Mr. Jamieson: Havering is covered by the London Safety Camera Partnership, which was accepted into the safety camera cost recovery scheme in April 2002. Fixed penalty fines totalling £5,121,060 resulted from the operation of safety cameras in the London partnership area in 2002–03. £4,549,380 was reimbursed to the partnership to cover the cost of its safety camera activity. In line with the general practice on fine revenues, the remaining £571,680 was passed to the Treasury. The figures for 2003–04 will be published in due course.
 
16 Jul 2004 : Column 1394W
 

Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what activities police forces will be allowed to spend the revenue resulting from speed cameras. [184365]

Dr. Howells [holding answer 15 July 2004]: Fines imposed on offenders normally accrue to the Consolidated Fund. The special arrangements for the Safety Camera Programme provide that the Safety Camera Partnerships of local police and highway authorities can be reimbursed for the costs involved in the installation and operation of safety cameras and the enforcement of the resulting fixed penalty fines. Any remaining fines go to the Consolidated Fund.

---