29 Jun 2005 : Column 239
House of Lords
Wednesday, 29 June 2005.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham
Nigel David Jones, Esquire, having been created Baron Jones of Cheltenham, of Cheltenham in the County of Gloucestershire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Russell-Johnston and the Lord Rennard.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold
The Right Honourable Gillian Patricia Shephard, having been created Baroness Shephard of Northwold, of Northwold in the County of Norfolk, for life—was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Saatchi and the Lord Baker of Dorking.
Road Signs: Speed Limits
2.50 pm
Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What regulations exist to ensure adequate visibility of, and distance between, road signs indicating changes in speed limits so as to assist drivers in complying with those limits.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 requires the Secretary of State and local traffic authorities to erect and maintain traffic signs to give adequate warning of speed limits to drivers.
Regulations relating to the size, placing and lighting of speed limit signs are contained in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. The Department for Transport Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/95 also provides detailed guidance on good practice.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he able to explain why, although controversial Camera 265 on Marlow Hill, High Wycombe, has been the subject of three major articles in the local press about this unsatisfactory site on an uphill carriageway, the Thames Valley Safer Road Partnership, which is responsible, has, claiming an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act, refused to respond to press requests for figures of amount of revenue raised and number of fines issued? Surely rather than this being a secret it should be public information.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not sure that I am familiar with that particular road sign, but I shall
29 Jun 2005 : Column 240
seek to acquaint myself with it—at a respectable speed, of course. The general position on safety cameras is that they are in place behind signs that are clearly presented and are subject to regulation. The signs are different to all other signs on the road, and they give drivers warning both of the speed and of the fact that a safety camera is in position. Our intention is not to catch drivers who exceed the speed limit but to guarantee that all drivers obey the speed limit.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, will the Minister clarify that Answer a little? First, if the 30 mph limit applies, there are no repeater signs within the area where there are street lights. That is an anomaly, which most Members would agree should be put right. I do not know whether speeds marked on the roads are possible, but certainly repeater signs are not placed in those areas.
Secondly, and much more dangerously, it is common to place speed cameras in areas where the speed limit may be 40, 50, 60 or 70 mph, and in those cases it is not usual to place a speed limit sign in advance of the camera. People do not know what the speed is and they apply the brakes suddenly, which is a cause of accidents.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, first, the noble Lord is right that repeater signs are not needed in lit areas where the original 30 mph sign is in place. It is not possible to pass a driving test without knowing that limit. If it is suggested that people need to be reminded in lit roads of the 30 mph limit, we can address ourselves to that matter since we have regular consultations on the regulations. What the noble Lord is describing in the first case is that which obtains in the vast majority of lit areas, which generally have 30 mph signs. The only reason that they would not have that limit would be if the road were a dual carriageway, where drivers would clearly expect a different speed limit.
On the second point, the noble Lord is right that repeater signs are not required with regard to the safety cameras, but the whole point of the safety cameras is that people should be aware of where they are and therefore the maximum attempt at highlighting those areas is carried out against a background where we also expect, with the development of GPS systems in cars and so on, that drivers will know where every single camera in the country is placed, and we are entirely happy with that information.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, in answer to another Question the Minister established that there is a difference between analogue and digital time. As most motorists have digital radios in their cars, there is the time lapse that the Minister established. In places where there are time signs, such as outside schools, so that there is no misunderstanding will law enforcement devices such as cameras make allowance for the fact that the motorist will have a digital radio and therefore a slightly delayed time in his car?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, if drivers conducted their cars with a degree of precision for which
29 Jun 2005 : Column 241
a five or six-second difference occasioned whether they obeyed or disobeyed the law, we would expect them to have a wider margin.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister now be kind enough to answer the question put to him by my noble friend Lady Gardner? Is it right that one of the revenue-raising cameras should be hidden from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act? She asked how much revenue it was raising.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, they are not revenue-raising cameras; they are safety cameras to enforce obedience to speed limits. The particular authority must answer for itself in terms of how much information it gives. Our general position with regard to safety cameras is clear. The partnerships that erect the cameras can devote the money only to the one aspect of safety on the roads. It is a complete canard to suggest, as I have heard it whispered in one or two quarters, that this is some form of stealth tax. It simply is not.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not think that the Minister has answered the question put again to him. With regard to the Question, would it be possible to do away with the horrible bumps in the road and put cameras in instead? Bumps mean increased emissions—whatever that means—and cameras do not.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is on a fruitful point. Local authorities have sought to rethink their policy of speed constraint through bumps, because there are many disadvantages. Therefore there is an increase in other forms of speed control.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, we are into the ninth minute. It is time for the next Question.
G8 Summit: Zimbabwe
2.58 pm
Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the emphasis of the forthcoming G8 Summit on Africa, they will take steps to ensure that there is adequate discussion at the summit of the situation in Zimbabwe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, the G8 summit will discuss a range of issues. We aim to get agreement on a comprehensive set of measures to support African efforts to promote
29 Jun 2005 : Column 242
peace, security and good governance, and to invest in people and growth. The discussions at the G8 will focus on that.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that the Prime Minister said that the state of Africa was a scar on the conscience of the world? Is not the state of Zimbabwe a scar on the conscience of Africa? The African leaders have not observed the bargain that they made with the G8 at the Kananaskis conference in 2002 with regard to human rights, the rule of law and good governance. Would it be useful if the G8, in a mood of quiet diplomacy, were to discuss with the African leaders who will be at the conference whether they believe that the G8 countries will continue to invest in Africa and have confidence in it if those leaders allow the absolutely horrifying conditions in Zimbabwe which now prevail to continue?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |