|
Mr. Jamieson: I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Member has said. Could he just help the Committee? He has largely argued against speed cameras. Could he now tell us what was the thinking back in the late '80s and in the early '90s when he introduced the cameras?
The Chairman: Order. I have allowed a fairly wide-ranging debate on the amendments but I will not be taken advantage of. We are not, in this clause, debating the merits of the cameras.
Mr. Chope: I have no regrets whatsoever about introducing the power to have camera enforcement in the Road Traffic Act 1991. It has been at its best at traffic lights.
Mr. Jamieson: Yes.
Mr. Chope: I am glad that the Minister agrees, because there can be no excuse whatsoever for going through a red traffic light. The more motorists who are caught and banged to rights for breaking traffic light rules the better. I am concerned, however, that they are now being used in such large numbers as a substitute for engineering and education improvements rather than as an end in themselves of helping enforcement. I will not go on with this any longer as we will have a chance to come back to this on clause 17.
In answering my question about the contents of clause 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill the Minister made another interesting point. He has drawn attention to the hypothecation in that clause, with resources going back directly to the police, rather than to so-called safety camera partnerships. The point that we are making on our side is that the hypothecation in relation to the fines from safety cameras could be to police authorities or to highway authorities for reinvestment. It is not necessary for there to be a safety camera partnership in order for hypothecation to be secured. That the Government accept that is apparent from the fact that they introduced clause 132 without having to set up a new body to accommodate the receipts from the fine hypothecation process.
We discussed the contents of the handbook and so on. I do not disagree with the idea of giving road safety grants, and I am grateful to the Minister for giving us some of the information about the money coming from the cameras. Are those figures for the last financial year, ending last April? If not, what period is covered? Does the £120 million of fines reflects those actually paid or just those imposed? We know that many fines are imposed but never paid, so perhaps the Minister could clarify that. We are grateful for the indication that there is a surplus of £20 million. It could be better spent if it were invested in road safety measures.
Having identified the amendment as a probing one, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
<<24>>10.45 am
Mr. Knight: This clause is widely drawn, and gives the Secretary of State massive unfettered powers. I am uneasy about its wording and seek reassurance from the Minister. The clause gives a national transport authority, which is
''the Secretary of State acting with the approval of the Treasury'',
which I presume he always does, the power to
''make payments to any local authority''—
I have no qualms about that—
''or any other authority or body for meeting the whole or part of the capital or running costs of any measures for promoting road safety.''
The Minister should explain what he has in mind, apart from the expected giving of grants to local authorities or perhaps safety camera partnerships.
I shall give an extreme example that would be allowed under the provision. The Wellingborough Labour party, perhaps despairing of the future, might decide in March, two months ahead of a general election, to launch a campaign, ''Be safe in Higham Ferrers.'' It might want every cyclist going through the constitutency to wear a bright, fluorescent jacket that states on the back, ''Paul Stinchcombe says, 'Be safe.''' Wellingborough Labour party is a body and it could say that its campaign was for road safety, so it seems that that would be allowed under the Bill.
Such an extreme example would not be acceptable to public opinion and the Minister would not venture that far. But there may be other marginal cases that might not upset public opinion but which most of here would consider unacceptable that the Minister could fund under the provision. Will he tell us what he has in mind and why he feels that it is in order for the Secretary of State to have that power to make such grants to any body or organisation for any measures so long as they relate to road safety?
John Thurso: This important clause gives important powers and we support it. However, I have two questions for the Minister.
First, I understand that the powers are already available in Scotland. Will the Minister confirm that the clause broadly mirrors the provision in Scotland, where it has worked well? Secondly, can he clarify why ''national transport authority'' means the
''Secretary of State acting with the approval of the Treasury''?
I understand from the helpful Library notes that no new money is attached to the proposal and that it is simply a more efficient and effective way of using existing resources. Is it normal to require the approval of the Treasury in each instance?
Mr. Jamieson: If I may, I shall say just a few generic words about the clause and then deal with the points that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
As I said earlier, clause 1 extends the scope of section 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for England and Wales. New section 40 makes it clear that the National Assembly for Wales or, for England, the Secretary of State may make payments to local authorities and
Column Number: 25
other authorities and bodies to meet the whole or part of the capital or running costs of any measure for promoting road safety.
I assure the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross that the grants are available in Scotland. The 1988 Act has already been amended for Scotland by section 76 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which enables Scottish Ministers to make contributions towards the cost of measures undertaken by local authorities and other authorities to promote road safety. I am glad to hear his news from the north that that is working well in Scotland.
The power to provide funding will support innovation in road safety. The development of road safety policy is often best achieved by piloting at a local level, which allows specific complex problems to be addressed by local authorities through the development of bespoke packages of road safety measures on the ground. There is accelerated learning for authorities that take part, and others with similar problems can select measures that have been effective for use in their area. It is an efficient use of public resources.
Although we have been able to fund local authority schemes in the past, the available funding methods have not been ideal. The special grant procedure has proved cumbersome and is better suited to unusual, one-off expenditures. Local government powers are broad and may have limitations compared with a specific road safety grant power. For example, the Gloucester safer city project relied on the predecessor to the local transport plan funding arrangements for capital, and rate support grant for revenue, so finance was not directly related to the project.
The project was extremely successful as a pilot, and many of the other authorities in this country—and, in fact, from around the world—are looking at the work to provide safer measures that Gloucester did to find improvements that they can replicate in their area. Probably 80 or 90 per cent. of the measures taken in Gloucester were very successful, but some were not. We learn from doing innovative things, and sometimes something that is not successful is also helpful, as other authorities will not want to replicate something that does not work.
Another example is the Kerbcraft project, which teaches young children practical roadside skills. I have been able to observe some of the work that is done in schools, and it is excellent. The schools co-operate with the local authority in providing people to assist children to cross the road safely.
The neighbourhood road safety initiative, which I spoke about briefly in relation to Stoke-on-Trent, focuses specifically on the disadvantaged. We know that children who live in tight, urban areas, often in poorer communities, are about five times more likely to be injured or killed on the roads than those who live in the leafier suburbs. That is why we focused our funding on areas that had a high death rate for children on the roads. I gave some illustrations earlier of how the grant money had been used.The new power in clause 1 has the benefits of clarifying the scope for
Column Number: 26
road safety projects, providing uncomplicated funding arrangements for local authorities and improving administrative arrangements.
A frisson ran through me when the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire spoke about diverting money from my Department to local Labour parties, specifically to the local party of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe). Attractive though that may seem to a Government, we come to the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. I do not think that it would meet Treasury rules. That is why the provision is in the clause, so that we, or a successor Government of another party, which the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who has come back to join us, has predicted will happen in 180 days' time—
Mr. Wilshire: Eighty.
Mr. Jamieson: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I thought he said 180. His powers of prediction are obviously better than mine. I do not know what will happen on 6 May. I am not privy to the inner workings of others.
Mr. Wilshire: The Minister will probably be down at the jobcentre with us.
| 
