| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The amendment would ban all performing animals in circuses, unless a particular species was exempted under regulations, with a two-year period following commencement of the offence in which no offences would be committed. This is not a minor amendment—I do not think that the noble Baroness says that it is—it is a complete reversal of the burden of proof regarding the use of circus animals. We have always proposed to ban certain species of wild animals on the basis of scientific evidence. That is the way we are trying to go forward. This amendment, however, seeks to ban all animals, not just wild animals, and to allow exemptions.
The Government have made it clear that we are committed to banning certain non-domesticated species currently used in circuses, with a regulation coming into force in 2008. That commitment is crystal clear. It has been given many times in debate, and it was given in a Written Statement to the other place on 8 March 2006 by the Minister, Ben Bradshaw. Adding an amendment to the Bill to confirm a commitment that has already been given is not necessary.
The Government’s commitment to ban certain non-domesticated species will be based on scientific evidence. Following a commitment that I gave in Grand Committee, the circus working group is up and running, and it is sourcing available, relevant evidence on welfare standards of non-domesticated species. We are already delivering on our commitment. The noble Baroness wants to go beyond a ban on wild animal acts and to commit us to a ban on all species of animal, subject to exemptions. Some may argue that this is a minor amendment, but it is not, as I have said. There is no evidence—I have not seen any and I do not think that the Minister in the other place has either—of a welfare problem for domesticated species in circuses, and our intention is not to ban them. The time limit for producing scientific evidence for every possible type of animal that is currently involved in circuses, which would then be used to assess whether they are exempted from a ban, is two years. That is probably nowhere near long enough in any event.
The amendment could have unfortunate and unforeseen consequences. It defines circus animals and their use in performance in a way that is totally different from our understanding of what a traditional travelling circus is. It could be interpreted—and others will interpret the legislation
1 Nov 2006 : Column 318
The amendment envisages some sort of government panel to consider scientific evidence and exempt all animal species both where there was evidence available and where there was no evidence of a welfare problem. The time and consideration necessary would be much greater than the noble Baroness anticipates. We could be left with a law that would put a sudden stop to a lot of entertainment that most of the public would regard as innocent and which in no way compromises the welfare of an animal. The impact on the welfare and future for animals already in circuses has not been considered. A six-month grace period for existing animals in circuses that are deemed to be unsuitable following scientific research is certainly not adequate, and the likely implications for the welfare of those animals have to be considered.
The resource implications of carrying out the research that would be necessary must also be considered. I have spelt out, as have previous Ministers, that our resources are finite. We do not have the resources to do everything all at once. We have had to make priorities. The Government have changed our priorities for implementing the secondary legislation and codes under this Bill to take account of the views that have been expressed in Parliament. Commitments have been given to introduce codes or legislation on greyhounds, circuses and game birds earlier than was originally planned.
The amendment would require a huge amount of resource to be focused on a narrow issue. I will plead resources. There is no argument. Everyone knows that my department has considerable budgetary problems at present. We are at £200 million this year, and we hope that within a few weeks we will announce the consequences for the following year, 2007-08. We are under severe budgetary pressure, and we are looking for savings. If we were to go back and say that we needed to use some of that for this, frankly, we would not get approval in the department from the team of Ministers. The amendment would require huge resources to be focused on an important but narrow issue on which we have already given a commitment. We are not dismissing this matter out of hand and we have given commitments on circus animals. But we cannot interfere with other commitments that we have given or the timetables that we have planned. I would rightly be hauled back here week after week at Questions about commitments that we would have given and failed on, such as those that I have mentioned on greyhounds and game birds.
My honourable friend Ben Bradshaw, the Member for Exeter, and I have assured both Houses in debate and in a Statement to Parliament that the
1 Nov 2006 : Column 319
7 pm
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the detail of his reply. I appreciate that the House has a long day and so I shall not be detailed in my reply, except to say that we on these Benches are equally anxious that the Bill should reach the statute book. We will look forward to the regulations in 2008 and we will keep an eye on the work of the circus working group. Because we do not wish to mess around at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 2:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be brief. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 is to correct a reference in the Bill as a result of the repeal of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 and its replacement with the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which has recently entered into force. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 3:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 6:
““(b) in relation to England and Wales, the expression “animal” means a “protected animal” within the meaning of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.””On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Rooker.)
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I will not take up the attention of the House for more than a couple of minutes. At various stages in our deliberations on the Bill, we have had cause to complain that too much is being done by regulation and, still worse, by codes of practice on which Parliament cannot get a lever. Noble Lords will remember the case of the greyhound
1 Nov 2006 : Column 320
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Road Safety Bill [HL]
7.04 pm
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
commons amendments[The page and line references are to Bill 113, as first printed for the Commons.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
On 15 December 2005, the Secretary of State announced that the current “netting off” funding arrangement for safety cameras operating within the national safety camera programme is to cease at the end of March 2007. From April 2007, all fines from speeding offences will go to the Treasury in the same way as any other fine, so there will no longer be a surplus of fine revenue. This means that the provisions in this clause will no longer be appropriate and, as such, the clause will not be needed.
Under new funding arrangements, local authorities will receive additional money for road safety through the local transport plan process—some £440 million over four years. The money will be available for funding safety cameras, but equally it will be available for funding any other form of road safety initiative. So, the Government will deliver the level playing field on funding that may be one of the purposes of Clause 2.
This new arrangement will mean that safety cameras and other road safety measures will be funded in exactly the same way. Also, it will integrate safety cameras into the wider road safety delivery process and give local authorities and road safety partners greater flexibility to implement whichever locally agreed mix of road safety measures will make the greatest contribution to reducing road casualties in their area.
1 Nov 2006 : Column 321
Furthermore, the revised funding arrangements that the Government are introducing from 1 April 2007 have two clear and important advantages as compared with the provisions of Clause 2. First, Clause 2 could give an incentive to local authorities to seek to increase the fine revenue generated by safety cameras, because that would increase the surplus funding which Clause 2 would make available for other local transport purposes—whereas, under the funding arrangements being introduced by the Government, there would be no possibility of such a perverse incentive.
Secondly, the arrangements being introduced by the Government will give to local authorities and their local partners much greater stability and certainty about the amount of funding available. If local authorities had to rely on surplus fine income from safety cameras, that could be unstable and uncertain, because the objective of the camera programme, which we all share, is to improve compliance with speed limits, which will reduce the level of fines over time and hence also reduce the level of any surplus—and very possibly lead to a deficit, where the costs of operating cameras are greater than the income from fines generated from camera detections.
I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, whether it is really his intention that local authorities which succeed in improving compliance with speed limits, thereby reducing the income from speed cameras, should be penalised by receiving less money for other transport purposes. Is it his intention that local authorities which succeed in driving up fine income from cameras by whatever means should be rewarded by receiving more funding for other transport purposes? Those would be the effects of Clause 2.
In the Government’s view, the clause would create perverse and dangerous incentives. As it is, some motorists suspect that the safety camera scheme is a revenue-generating device. That is a widespread misapprehension among motorists and others. There is currently no justice in that suspicion, but if Clause 2 were enacted, there would be real grounds for it. That would be damaging, because it is important that the Government’s road safety policies should command the respect of the great majority of road users, including motorists.
Finally, I must advise the noble Lord that Clause 2 is technically defective in at least three respects. First, it refers to,
which is an inaccurate phrase of uncertain ambit and could well extend to income from offences detected by police officers as well as offences detected by cameras. Secondly, it refers to a “relevant national authority”, which is a strange and undefined notion; by contrast, Section 38 of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 confers powers on the Secretary of State. Thirdly, there are other undefined terms such as “safety camera scheme”, “relevant local transport authority” and “local transport facilities”. The noble Lord may think I am nitpicking—he does—but this legislation is at a very late stage and our obligation is to ensure that it is as accurate as possible.
The crucial point is that Clause 2 is no longer necessary. Given the changes which the Government
1 Nov 2006 : Column 322
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Lord Hanningfield moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be as brief as possible. It is interesting to note that it is exactly one year ago this month that we first discussed this amendment in your Lordships' House. I declare an interest as leader of Essex County Council, as this amendment is relevant to local government.
Noble Lords will recall that this new clause is designed to enhance local road safety measures by permitting the hypothecation of surplus income from safety camera enforcement for expenditure by relevant local transport authorities on road safety measures. In short, it is intended to provide a source of funding that will enable local expertise to be translated into local road safety initiatives in a manner that is both responsive to and commensurate with the character of local problems.
The figures are quite striking. In 2000-01, there were only seven camera partnerships which took just over £10 million in fines and spent just under £9 million, leaving a balance of a little over £1 million, which went into the Consolidated Fund—better known perhaps as the Chancellor’s black hole, which the Minister has just mentioned. That balance was 13 per cent of the funds in 2001. What is fascinating is that there has been a spectacular increase in income and in the number of partnerships. There were about 35 partnerships in 2003-04 with receipts of £112 million and an expenditure of £92 million, leaving £20 million going to the Chancellor. Not only have receipts increased approximately tenfold, but the balance going to the Chancellor as a percentage of total receipts has increased from 13 per cent to 18 per cent.
Ten years ago around 200,000 speeding fines were issued. That figure has now rocketed to 2 million. At the same time, the number of traffic policemen has fallen from 9,000 in 1997 to 7,000 in 2005. Therefore, we are worried that there is too much dependence on mechanical, fixed forms of enforcement and not enough on human beings—policemen—who can take account of varying conditions. We are also concerned about the serious failing in the Government’s strategy. That very point was echoed by the report published yesterday by the Transport Select Committee, which stated that the country needed greater numbers of traffic officers to enforce existing traffic laws. The committee chairman, Gwyneth Dunwoody, went further and said that cameras are a useful tool but could not replace officers. It is exactly that type of electronic policing, blunt and arbitrary as it is, that is causing rather a lot of anger around the country.
1 Nov 2006 : Column 323
7.15 pm
This amendment is not about whether cameras save lives or reduce accidents—clearly evidence suggests that in most cases they do—but about bringing greater transparency and openness to the process of road enforcement and allowing people the chance to see that surplus revenues are being spent directly on road safety measures. Speaking of my own county, we could be as much as £6 million better off, and that money would provide so many more road safety projects. I am quite happy that the money should be hypothecated to road safety. That would be much more transparent compared with it going to the Consolidated Fund and not knowing whether or not we get that money.
A few months ago, in some press articles, the Government hinted that they were interested in operating a scheme that we had been suggesting. I believe that it is not too late for the Government to table their own amendment to this Bill. I hope that they will give some serious thought to it. I am sure that we would work with them to tidy up the amendment to make it appropriate. This is an important transparency issue. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.—(Lord Hanningfield.)
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has said in contra-distinction to what the Minister said. Being a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority and Oxfordshire County Council, I am well aware of the new funding arrangements. The amount of new money which is available to county councils for road safety schemes from the new scheme to which the Minister referred is very little. There are many schemes in the county which would save lives but for which no funding is available. Contrary to what the Minister said, I believe that although motorists are not happy about being fined when caught by speed cameras, they will be much more content knowing that the revenue accruing to a local or national authority will, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, be spent on improving road safety. There is a multitude of schemes but insufficient money. That is why I support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I support the amendment. I particularly want to emphasise my noble friend’s point about transparency. I do not agree with the Minister that people are under a “widespread misapprehension” about how they are being clipped by the so-called safety cameras. As he will know, Marlow Hill in Wycombe is one case on which I often comment, and the Bucks Free Press has attempted to get the facts of the case. I think that transparency is necessary. The reply received from the authority that receives the money is that, under the Freedom of Information Act, it does not have to give any details or information about the case because it is exempt. Why should the revenue from such cameras be exempted? Why should there not be transparency so that people know the figures?
1 Nov 2006 : Column 324
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |