|
Mr. Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con): I speak as a London Member of Parliament. I represent an outer London constituency and, unfortunately, we suffer
Column Number: 12
greatly from being lumped into partnerships and bodies stretching all the way across London. The safety camera partnership is an example of that. People in my constituency have often asked for road safety implementation cameras, but, because we are part of London, the decision is always to focus resources on inner London and to ignore areas such as the London borough of Havering and my constituency of Romford.
I strongly endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Spelthorne said about the two amendments. I believe that the camera partnerships are a complete and utter waste of money and totally bureaucratic. My greatest objection is to the lack of flexibility and local control.
I used to be a local councillor in Romford, and represented a village on the edge of London called Havering-atte-Bower. It is a very hilly village with narrow lanes. Many accidents have occurred over the years, with several fatalities. Yet, despite everything that we have done locally to try and get a camera installed, the London camera partnership tell us that that is simply not acceptable and that it does not meet the criteria. So even if the police and the local council and residents want a camera, they cannot have one because funding is not directed to my area but to central London and other areas of London where this so-called partnership decides the cameras are going to be of greater use.
The lack of local control, the lack of flexibility and the failure of these partnerships to recognise the needs of local communities—particularly those of villages, like the one I have mentioned—indicates to me that any money directed to these organisations is a waste. I therefore strongly endorse the amendments.
Mr. Jamieson: This clause and these innocent little amendments have certainly lifted the lid on the clear differences between Conservative Members. We have four Conservative Members, who appear to have four different views on safety and cameras.
Mr. Wilshire: Would the hon. Gentleman like to wait in expectation until all five of us are here?
Mr. Jamieson: It would be instructive to get some further views; we may even have five Members competing with their difference views. If I can just throw in a fifth element—for the hon. Members for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) and for Spelthorne, perhaps—the safety camera partnerships have widespread support among their colleagues in local government. Most of the partnerships are supported by Conservatives in local government, who not only support them but actively pursue having cameras put in local communities. They are pursuing that because they are the people on the ground closest to the problems in their community. In many cases they are responding to the concerns of their constituents about speeding. They know that when the cameras are installed, there is a substantial reduction in the number of casualties on the stretches of road concerned.
Column Number: 13
Overall, our audit last year across the country demonstrated that, on average, there was a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured at the sites where the cameras had been placed. In some cases the reductions were as great as 70 per cent. When we look a little more closely at the figures, we see that proportionately more children and elderly people have been saved than the general mass of population. That is probably why there is so much enthusiasm at local government level—by Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors—for cameras to be installed in their communities.
In a way, I am sorry; I thought that I had been helpful last year when the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) took a polarised view of this issue. I provided information and an explanation and I thought that perhaps the Conservatives' view might change somewhat on this and that they might come to some sense. That is clearly not the case.
Mr. Wilshire: I listened to the Minister's fiction with some amusement. His explanation as to why at least one Conservative-controlled county council is enthusiastic is totally wrong. Has he not heard about Surrey county council, which has decided to set one of these things up? They have made it quite clear that they have no intention of adding any more cameras and that the only reason they have done it is that they are so grossly underfunded by the Government's police grant that they have no alternative but to try to defray the cost of their cameras by fleecing the motorists.
Mr. Jamieson: That is totally wrong. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to look at some of the other authorities; I have a list here of the partnerships. I know from personal contact and from the many letters that we have received from councillors and from some of the portfolio holders of the highways budgets how they have supported the cameras in their communities. The hon. Member for Spelthorne may want to connect with his colleagues in local government, because they have a different view from the one that he has expressed in the Committee.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would amend the clause so that a national transport authority—the Secretary of State for England or the National Assembly for Wales—could not provide payments to any organisation that formed part of a safety camera partnership. A partnership is a voluntary grouping that enables the police forces and highway authorities to operate cameras effectively. Virtually all highway authorities in England are now involved in the partnerships, regardless of the political party running the authority.
Our main purpose in amending section 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is to clarify the scope for funding large-scale demonstration projects, to provide uncomplicated funding arrangements for local authorities that undertake such projects and to improve the administrative arrangements. Under the rules that we apply to the safety camera partnerships, money is available to them to fund the safety camera
Column Number: 14
operational expenditure through camera revenue netting-off arrangements. Under our strict guidelines, authorities can use the funds for that purpose only.
I know that the hon. Member for Christchurch introduced safety cameras when was a Transport Minister. I think that he did a good job. I commend him, as I have on many other occasions, for having had the good sense to introduce them. We have taken the policy somewhat further. At the time, the hon. Gentleman predicted that 2 million tickets a year would be issued. It has taken 13 or 14 years to reach the number that he predicted in 1990; his predictions were right, but it took a little time.
We have laid down a strict code of conduct for the partnerships, so that cameras cannot be placed anywhere simply to raise revenue. They must be placed on a stretch of road where, first, speeding takes place and, secondly, there is a record of death and injury. Over a period of about 13 months I have asked Opposition Members to let me know if they know of any cameras that do not meet those guidelines. There are about 5,000 cameras in the country. I constantly ask this question, but not a single camera has been brought to my attention during those 13 months. I assume from that that the partnerships are operating within the rules and that the authorities, many of them Conservative, are operating carefully within the rules and improving road safety in their area.
10 am
Mr. Knight: Do those guidelines also apply to mobile camera sites? If not, what are the guidelines for siting mobile units?
Mr. Jamieson: If it is helpful to the right hon. Gentleman, I can get him the full set of guidelines. Yes, they do apply to mobile sites. There is greater flexibility. The police have the ability to set up a mobile site outside the remit of the partnerships if they have concerns about a stretch of road: they would not receive the funding revenue from the fines. They can set them up at any time, at the chief constable's discretion, and usually in response to concerns about speeding. I think that about 10 per cent. of the sites in the partnership are mobile sites.
The hon. Member for Christchurch spoke as though a large amount of excess money was available from the partnership. In round figures, about £120 million was collected in fines last year and about £100 million returned to the partnerships. The partnerships include local authorities, the police, the judiciary and, in some cases, health authorities. The money is returned to them so that they can operate the cameras and—this is the important point—so that operation of the cameras is not a burden on the wider budget of the local authority or the police. The cameras do not take money away from fighting forms of crime other than speeding on the roads.
Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central) (Lab): Is the hon. Member for Christchurch right in saying that such organisations cannot reinvest money in warning signs? If so, why is that the case? It seems eminently sensible to prevent rather than prosecute. If
Column Number: 15
there is a good reason why they should not invest in warning signs, could my hon. Friend the Minister explain it to the Committee?
Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Part of the guidance for the siting of the cameras is that they must be conspicuous. They are painted yellow so that they are obvious. We do not want to catch people but to slow them down at sites where there have been the most casualties. The cameras must be clearly signed and advertised as well; that, too, is part of the guidance. Again, if my hon. Friend would like a copy of the guidance, I would be happy to provide one.
Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. A helpful offer has been made twice to provide documentation to colleagues. Perhaps it would be a good idea if the whole Committee were to get a copy.
| 
