Road Safety Bill [HL]

I concur with my noble friends on this point. I understand that the Transport Research Laboratory has conducted a conclusive study which demonstrates that speed cameras in London have reduced the numbers of people killed and seriously injured by more than 20 per cent. Comparing before and after casualties shows that cameras in London can reduce collisions by over 50 per cent on average. It seems to me that the amendment is about making the installation of speed cameras more difficult by adding more and more regulations and more and more requirements on the authorities and partnerships which want to put the speed cameras in position. That is entirely the wrong approach to take. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will oppose the amendment, and perhaps in doing so he could indicate that the Department for Transport is taking a more positive line on speed cameras. My understanding is that there are more than 500 sites in London where the casualty history exceeds the four killed or seriously injured criteria for cameras. They are all sites where lives could be saved, but the Department for Transport is resisting the requests from the London Safety Camera Partnership to have speed cameras installed at far more of those sites. Indeed, in the 66 sites identified in the London Safety Camera Partnership’s proposals for the current financial year—which the Department for Transport has sat on and has not allowed to go forward—there have been in the first three months of the year some 100 collisions involving injury at those sites alone. Under those circumstances, I hope my noble friend will indicate that not only is he opposing the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, which is designed to make the installation of speed cameras more difficult, but he will also indicate that the Department for Transport will be much more flexible in allowing safety camera partnerships to proceed with installations of safety cameras where there is a clear and proven case.