HC Deb 03 February 2004 vol 417 cc617-8
13. Tony Wright(Lab) (Cannock Chase)

What assessment he has made of the casualty reduction associated with speed cameras. [152283]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)

On 11 February 2003, my Department published an independently produced evaluation report of the two-year trial of the safety camera cost recovery system. That showed a 35 per cent. reduction in those killed or seriously injured at camera sites, equating to some 280 people, and a 4 per cent. reduction in those killed and seriously injured across the pilot areas, equating to some 530 people. The report of the scheme's third year of operation will be published shortly.

Tony Wright

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He mentioned a figure of 35 per cent., but he will know that in Staffordshire the figure is 65 per cent., which is an extraordinary achievement in reducing the numbers of people killed or injured. I remind those people who think that cameras are a great infringement of human liberties that lives are being saved.

Mr. Jamieson

I congratulate the Staffordshire partnership on its success, which is way above average. For example, my hon. Friend will know the A460. In the three years before a camera was introduced on that road, five people were killed or seriously injured: in the three years since, nobody has been killed or seriously injured. I commend the partnership on the work that it does and we look forward to further success in the future.

Mr. Andrew Mackay(Con) (Bracknell)

As someone who shares the view of the majority of motorists that all too often speed cameras are introduced to increase revenue rather than to improve safety, I have a specific example, as requested by the Secretary of State. I would appreciate the Minister's comments on the speed camera on the dual carriageway in and out of Heathrow airport, which is completely safe. The camera is unnecessary and must be there purely for revenue purposes, and that is a bad example to show to people who have just entered the country.

Mr. Jamieson

As with all fines, the revenue comes back to the Government, except in the case of cameras run by a partnership, where a large proportion of the money goes into keeping the cameras running and to the police. That money supplants what the police would have used to support the cameras in any case. The Heathrow area is sensitive and sometimes congested. People may be fatigued after flights—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman would stop chuntering and listen for a moment, it would help. The area is especially sensitive and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not condone people breaking the law and using excess speed in that area.