§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
11.56 pm§ Mr. David Kidney (Stafford)This has been an impressive week for the parliamentary deliberation of transport policy. I participated in Monday's debate on the Water Industry Bill but, sadly, we did not discuss the subject of water-borne transport. However, things looked up for transport on Tuesday when the main debate concerned the Road Traffic (NHS) Charges Bill and the Adjournment debate was about rail fares. The first debate today addressed the issue of road traffic reduction and the last debate is about the funding of speed cameras.
It has also been a good week for considering transport policy outside the Chamber. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister published his consultation document on road, use charges and workplace car park charges, and today, the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs considered the Government's integrated transport policy. By coincidence, one of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee was a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers. The assistant chief constable of Cleveland, Mr. Richard Brunstrom, gave evidence about the funding of speed cameras.
I aim to deliver two basic messages to the House and to the Minister who will respond to the debate. First, speed cameras contribute significantly to road safety; and, secondly, we cannot achieve the optimal coverage of road routes without more secure funding for speed cameras. I hope that, when the Minister responds to the debate, he will confirm the accuracy of the report that appeared in today's edition of the Evening Standard that the Home Office is convinced of the benefits of additional funding for speed cameras on Britain's roads.
In 1987, a previous Government set a target to achieve a one third reduction in road casualties by 2000. The House now awaits the Government's announcement in this Parliament of new national targets for road casualty reduction beyond 2000. In addition, we understand that the Government will soon issue a road safety strategy. I ask the Minister to confirm when we might expect those new targets and the Government's new road safety strategy. It is difficult to imagine that those documents will not contain some substantial news about speed cameras and the part that they will play in driving down the number of road casualties in this country. Indeed, speed cameras have a proven record of reducing road casualties.
In Staffordshire, where my constituency lies, in the three years since cameras were installed on the first 12 sites, there has been a dramatic reduction in crashes causing personal injury. In the three years before the cameras were installed, there were 599 accidents, compared with 472 accidents after their installation. That represents a 21 per cent. reduction. Applying the law of averages to the figures for the period before the cameras were installed, the reduction represents a saving of 10 lives on the road, 29 serious injuries in road crashes and 88 slight injuries. The financial benefit to the community from the subsequent lack of need for attention at sites by the police and the fire service and for health treatment of people injured in accidents is estimated to total £8 million.
454 It is significant that the severity of the crashes has decreased. Incidents of fatal and serious injury have fallen by 49 per cent. from 79 to 40. That reflects the slower speed of traffic at those sites.
What is the national picture? Where better to look for news on the success of speed cameras than in a report commissioned by the Home Office? In 1995, the Home Office commissioned a cost-benefit analysis of speed cameras and traffic lights from Andrew Hook, Jim Knox and David Portas. The report, which was issued in 1996, revealed that, in areas where speed cameras were used, accidents fell by 28 per cent. and speeds were reduced by an average of 4.2 mph. The fixed cost for installing cameras was £12,500 each and the average recurring expenditure for each camera was £8,500 per year.
The report went on to describe the wider benefits of the cameras, such as the release of police officers from speed enforcement duties for other useful duties and the detection not only of speeding offences but other crimes, including serious crimes. There is also anecdotal evidence that people in the local communities along the routes where the cameras are installed feel safer.
In addition to those benefits, ACPO—which has given evidence today to the Select Committee—estimates that there is a financial saving to the community of £8 billion a year from the wider use of speed cameras. ACPO argues that that translates into substantial savings in NHS treatment, which results in lower waiting lists. That is truly an example of the joined-up thinking in which the Government are interested.
On funding, the conclusion of the cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the Home Office said:
The cost benefit analysis demonstrated that the use of … speed cameras generated substantial net benefits. It was also shown that the 'pay back' period for this technology was fairly short and that implementation has led to a reduction in the number of road traffic accidents at camera sites.In Staffordshire, a good example of that is the good partnership working arrangements between the county council's highway authority and Staffordshire police, who are the enforcing agency. Both contribute to the costs of the speed cameras. That means that council tax payers are paying for the speed cameras. The budgets of the council and the police authority are under pressure. That is not unique to Staffordshire; it is typical of what is happening around the country. Staffordshire has identified further sites that would benefit from the installation of speed cameras by potentially reducing road casualties, but the limited funds restrain its ability to install the cameras to make the savings in road casualties. In the meantime, all the fines collected from speeding motorists go directly to the Treasury; none of the money goes towards the cost of installing and maintaining the speed cameras themselves.How much is the income from fines? About 250,000 people face speeding fines each year, and a fixed penalty is £40. If a quarter of a million people pay £40, the fine income is £10 million. However, some people go to court because their speeding is so serious that a fixed penalty is not appropriate. The average court fine is a little over £100, so each year the income from fines must be well above £10 million. The Evening Standard report gives a figure of £17 million.
A little-noticed fact about the speeders who go to court and face a fine is that the magistrates add to the fine an award of costs that the motorists must also pay. Those 455 costs are for the administration of bringing the case before the magistrates court, so there is nothing new in asking those who offend to pay administration costs in addition to the penalty. Might it not be a neat solution, as some police and councils argue, if the speeder were charged an administration fee in addition to the fine? I strongly agree with that approach.
I understand that the Government have been reviewing the funding of speed cameras for some time. Has the Minister any news of when an announcement might be expected? Some argue that the administration charge that I mentioned could be said to be an extra levy or another tax on motorists. That was certainly the approach taken in an article in The Sunday Telegraph last week. My response to that—perhaps the Minister will agree—is that that would certainly not be the case if best practice were strictly enforced.
I take best practice to mean that the amount of the administration fee is transparently all that is required to cover the administration costs but, more important, that the sites selected for the placing of speed cameras are selected by reference to criteria that relate exclusively to road casualty reduction and also that, when the radars are set for the cameras, they are set within strictly defined parameters. The cost-benefit analysis to which I have referred also mentions that point.
The report's conclusion states:
The study also generated a number of good practice guidelines which are presented in the main report. These suggest that the level of benefit derived from the use of cameras was linked to the manner in which they are deployed.In other words, following best practice is the right thing to do, in terms not only of effectiveness in use but of not claiming extra money from people, over and above the penalty.In Staffordshire, best practice is underwritten by the fact that the police and the council have signed a service level agreement, which includes criteria such as how the sites for the road cameras are selected. In this way, the public are reassured that the only priority is road safety.
I recently visited the Staffordshire traffic police headquarters, which is in my constituency. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedication of the workers—police officers and civilians—who detect and enforce the payment of fines by those who exceed speed limits. They, like others across the country, are working to make our roads safer, but will the Minister outline the Government's policy to make sure that they all have the right tools to do their job effectively.
§ 12.9 am
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng)The House owes my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) a debt of gratitude for bringing this matter before it. He has shown unusual prescience—not that he does not normally show prescience—in that, in view of several announcements over the past 24 hours by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, an Adjournment debate has seldom been as well timed.
The funding of speed cameras is, of course, an important issue. We are all familiar with the camera logo at the road side. It warns us to slow down. Those with 456 any sense do so, and those without risk a fine. It would be all too easy to forget that the objective of cameras is not to raise revenue through the levying of fines but to reduce injuries and to save lives. I very much welcome the way in which my hon. Friend highlighted at the outset of his speech the importance of the road safety benefits of cameras. He was quite right to set that as a context in which this important debate should be conducted. We are fully committed to ensuring as a Government that we work across Departments—the Home Office, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Treasury—to improve road safety. We recognise that the use of cameras is one important means of so doing.
The history of the matter is well known. It goes back to the North report in 1988, which recommended that the law should be changed to facilitate the use of cameras for enforcing road traffic law, and the Road Traffic Act 1991, which implemented that report, starting the growth in the use of cameras. They have grown like Topsy ever since. The Act provided enhanced powers for the police to trace the drivers of cars and introduced a new arrangement for improving the accuracy and reliability of cameras, linked with the introduction of a fixed-penalty system, which allows the police to serve fixed penalties on offenders by post. That was the platform on which the growth has occurred.
The good news is that the number of speeding offences detected by cameras has risen from a little more than 32,000 in 1993 to more than 262,000 in 1996–34 per cent. of speeding offences dealt with in that year, the last year for which we in the Home Office have official figures. We expect the figure for 1997 to be significantly higher.
Despite such growth, the issue of funding has always been challenging. Indeed, it was the very first issue raised with me during my recent attendance at the annual conference of the Association of Police Authorities in Blackpool. I am delighted that we are not only debating it, but doing so in the context of a change in our practice.
It was originally envisaged that the police would purchase the cameras and pay their running costs. However, the Home Office circular issued with the 1991 Act envisaged the possibility that highway authorities could, by agreement, share the cost with the police. That is precisely what has happened. Most cameras have been purchased by local highway authorities, and the police pay for the processing of film and administrative costs. That partnership is to be commended. It fits in well with the highway authorities' responsibility for the promotion of road safety.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, however, as the number of cameras and administrative costs have grown, so the financial burden on local authorities and the police service has increased—hence their understandable concern. In light of that, it is not surprising that much of the correspondence that my fellow Ministers and I receive on the subject, as Ministers, suggests that some of the fine income from cameras should be re-invested in its source, to promote road safety. That hypothecation has its attractions. There are some difficulties and challenges too, and in recent months we have been reflecting on those.
We understand the attraction of the scheme. It is a simple way to fund cameras, and there is a certain sense of justice in the notion that offenders should pay for the 457 running of the cameras that detect their offending. It could be suggested that, without offenders, there would be no need for cameras.
However, in government we must take a broader view as to how revenue is raised and the priorities for spending it. The fact that speed cameras can generate fine income for the Treasury does not automatically mean that the money should be re-invested in cameras. Some Government priorities generate no income, and funding must come from somewhere. It is not just a question of following the apparently easy and obvious course. It is necessary to recognise the importance of ensuring good value for money.
Any decision whether to change camera funding arrangements depends on a proper, detailed evaluation of the case. We have been engaged in such an evaluation. The emerging findings are reflected in the announced statements and intentions of my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but we must remember that we are talking about providing additional public funds for cameras over and above that which the police service and highway authorities have already earmarked. That additionality is very important, and it is vital that we get an objective judgment as to the costs and benefits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred to some of the analysis that we have commissioned on traffic lights and speed cameras, and has cited some results that were published in 1996. When considering the fall in accidents at speed camera sites—some 28 per cent., as my hon. Friend said—the £5.3 million investment made to install cameras, the fivefold return on that amount after one year and the return of more than 25 times that amount after five years, we must recognise that it is not all cash, and that opportunity costs are included. Nevertheless, the figures are impressive, and they show the benefits. They also show some spin-off advantages. Many forces found that the use of cameras released officers from other duties. That is enormously important. Significantly, cameras have produced some useful results in terms of the detection of other crime, not least in the identification of stolen vehicles.
We have seen, objectively, the costs and benefits that can arise from running speed cameras when they are properly deployed and used. The study also identified for the first time the costs that running cameras places on the court system. My hon. Friend, as a solicitor, will be aware of those costs. There are costs of administration and of court time—and from time to time, not least, there are costs on the Crown Prosecution Service.
The funding of speed cameras is of concern not only to the police and local highway authorities; a chain of processes needs to be taken into account. We must ensure that we do not distort the process by using any form of hypothecation that would have that effect. A concern exists that, if a person's income depends directly on the number of motorists that they prosecute, that person will feel pressure to take action against the marginal case.
That would obviously not be right. I am bound to say that, in this country, that risk is a pretty theoretical one, but it is there. There are a number of important interests that we need to balance, not least continued public support for the notion that speed cameras are in place, first and foremost, to reduce casualties on our roads. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and other right hon. And 458 hon. Members will be aware of the experience in Canada. When it became clear to the public that cameras were being used not primarily for road safety purposes but to generate revenue, public opinion turned against the cameras to the detriment of road safety. That was because they became a political issue. As a result of that, speed cameras were driven off the roads in the aftermath of the electoral process. I do not believe that that would happen in this country but we need to take into account the importance of public support.
We must always remember as well that operational matters are for the chief officer. It is the chief officer—not Ministers or local government officers—who must determine precisely how the cameras are deployed for maximum effect in his area. Deployment will vary properly from force to force. Indeed, some chief officers have made it clear that their interest in the proposals stem from the fact that they do not have the revenues that they would like to place the cameras where they would like. Sometimes conflicting priorities need to be set. Local choices are sometimes difficult.
The Government also have to make choices. There are never enough resources to pursue all our aims to perfection, but we are convinced that the partnership approach is the one that holds out the best solution. We are determined to build on that as we take forward this issue and as we explore the possibilities that are now being opened up by the Treasury's position and the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
The criteria that need to be met were summarised in "The Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998" of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He made the position clear then and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary made the point that, in determining what would be a flexible and effective framework within which the controls on the spending of public money operate, there must be strict criteria. He believes that the time is now right to consider how such criteria would work in this area. Indeed, my right hon. Friend makes the point that it is important to ensure that, in each instance, the money raised is appropriate, that it is spent where it is most needed and that it will not distort the operational priorities of the organisations concerned.
The point was made in section 3.4 of "The Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998" that Departments will be able to keep some levies and similar taxes, netting them off the departmental expenditure limit where that would further the Government's economic objectives, improve efficiency and not prejudice spending plans and priorities. It is important that there should be safeguards. Safeguards would ensure that some income from fines might also be netted off the departmental expenditure limit where that would assist in fighting crime. We are anxious to ensure that those criteria are developed along the lines announced by the Treasury today. They represent a significant departure from previous policy and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, who raised these matters at such a timely stage, will find the development most encouraging.
There is still some way to go. We still need to ensure that we can meet and readily identify the costs of enforcement and apportion them without undue bureaucracy. We still need to ensure that we get the inter-departmental and inter-agency agreement in place.
459 We still need also to identify the savings that we can achieve through change and ensure that adequate efficiency arrangements are in place to deliver those changes in a way that does not impose additional costs. Those costs, where they exist, will need to be properly controlled, and we need to keep efficiency under regular review.
We are working with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Lord Chancellor's Department on carrying the issue forward. 460 We will make proposals to the Treasury in due course, and the Chief Secretary has indicated his willingness to agree such proposals if they meet his criteria. I have no doubt that, in due course, in the spirit of partnership and co-operation that I have outlined, we will be able to meet the objectives which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford has so ably shown he shares and which are so much in the interests of his constituents and of the people of our country in general.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Twelve midnight.