Road Safety Bill [HL]

I am grateful to noble Lords   who have spoken in the debate. I want to emphasise to   the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Hanningfield, that of course the main purpose of Clause   1 is to clarify the scope for funding large-scale demonstration projects. We want to provide, as I think both noble Lords were seeking, uncomplicated funding arrangements for the local authorities who undertake such projects and we want to improve the administrative arrangements. So I am at one with them when they press for the need for clarity in this area and improvement in that respect. I want to clear up again that canard which refuses to fade away and which was referred to at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, gave me credit for having made a valiant attempt at Second Reading to do so. He reiterated the question so I shall reiterate the answer. Under the rules we apply to the safety camera partnerships, money is available to them to fund safety camera operational expenditure through camera revenue netting offer arrangements. They cannot use these funds for any other purpose. Where authorities wish to undertake road safety measures to complement the cameras, there are existing funding mechanisms through capital allocations and rate support grants. So we are quite clear about the specific nature of the moneys that are raised through the safety camera partnerships on the question of camera revenue and it is toward specific ends. Amendments Nos. 1 and 5, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, would amend Clause 1 so that a national transport authority—either the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales—could not provide payments to any organisation that forms part of a safety camera partnership. I should explain that a partnership is a voluntary grouping that enables police forces and highway authorities to operate safety cameras effectively. Almost all highway authorities are involved in such partnerships. In addition to that problem, the amendments would   mean that any authority associated with a safety camera partnership would be disqualified from seeking funding for a large-scale road safety project, whether entirely unrelated to safety cameras or whether safety cameras were just one small constituent part of a whole package of measures to address a specific road safety problem in an area. I assure the Committee that I understand the noble Lord’s search for clarity; that is an objective that we all share. But I am sure that he would not want to press his amendments, which would have such a detrimental effect on the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord   Hanningfield, described his Amendment No. 3 as a probing amendment. It would mean that a national transport authority—the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales—could not provide payments to any organisation that is not a local authority without prior consultation with the relevant local authority or authorities. I am of course grateful for the noble Lord’s explanation of his desire to use the amendment to tease out more clearly the Government’s intention. The national transport authority already has the power to make grants to bodies other than local authorities under Section 40 of the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998. In 2004–05, a total of almost £340,000—worth of small grants were made under the road safety challenge fund to charities and bodies other than local authorities with innovative proposals to improve road safety and reduce casualties. The grant process is carefully regulated and quite transparent. To receive grants of up to £20,000, applicants must meet specific, published criteria. Grant funding is allocated to proposers with a national rather than local impact. The effect of Amendment No. 3 on existing arrangements for allocating grants to bodies other than local authorities is significant. It would mean that central government would need to consult all local authorities within an area to provide a grant to another body in that area, regardless of whether that body or grant-funded project had significant links in the area. Grant funding made to bodies other than local authorities is for projects with a national impact and it would not be appropriate to consult local authorities prior to allocating such grants. That is why the clause is drafted as it is. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, will feel that he has probed successfully and elicited from me a clear response.