Road Safety Bill [HL]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, perhaps most of all to my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey who put succinctly the case for the cameras. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, was good enough to reiterate some remarks that I made on a previous occasion. I wanted then to say—and I seek to take this opportunity to emphasise—that speed cameras are there to control speed. They are there because there is a proven need for them to be there to deal with accidents. They are not revenue-raising; they are an important part of our armoury to improve road safety. I was grateful to my noble friend for illustrating the efficacy of the cameras in London, which is matched by evidence across the country. On his additional point, he contends that the case for cameras elsewhere is well-established. I cannot comment on detail of the individual camera locations, as I am sure he will recognise. He knows that there are criteria for the additional use of cameras. In due course, if the case is established, I have no doubt that the camera will duly be installed. We are convinced of the efficacy of cameras in restraining speed in the interests of road safety. Our improved statistics are partly to do with this aspect of road safety. In dealing with the amendment itself, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, will forgive me if I land a low blow first and fight in a more lordly fashion thereafter. The low blow is to say that the amendment asks to change the cameras by adding a light, because we would do that through the traffic signs regulations. That, I am afraid, will not do. The cameras are not traffic signs. They do not fall into that category at all. If the noble Lord wanted to change them, he would have to address the amendment to an entirely different proposition. I am not inviting him to do so, because I am going to try to prove, in a more gentlemanly fashion, why I do not think they are necessary. I wanted to indicate, however, that the amendment is defective in those terms. We could not do it in the terms which he has indicated. We are of course concerned that safety cameras should be visible. I made that clear when we discussed other aspects of road safety earlier in the Bill. The specifications for the cameras are quite clear. When we previously discussed these matters, we were looking at whether certain devices would detect where the cameras were, and I was applauding the fact that we are all in favour of drivers knowing exactly where these fixed cameras are. If that conditions drivers to better behaviour, the cameras are achieving exactly their stated purpose. I entirely support the representations of my noble friends, including my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton, that we need clear repeaters on road safety limits. That is also built in to the regulations on cameras. I can assure him that they are quite specific in that there are mats by the cameras, a warning that the cameras are there and giving an indication of the speed limit. Changes in speed limits are carefully designated in our regulations to ensure that drivers are aware of them. That is not to say that I am not mindful of the fact that, from time to time, as my noble friend has kindly indicated, a driver may not be aware of the prevailing speed limit. The only safe action to take in those circumstances, I am afraid, is to slow down. Any other action could find one falling foul of the law. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, is arguing the case—which we obviously support and are seeking to advance—that drivers should be aware of where the cameras are; that the cameras do an essential job; and that they are, in fact, improving driving behaviour. I was grateful for the illustration that was given. Illuminating the cameras, however, is no addition to the position whatever. The warning sign beforehand, the cameras themselves—which are such significant and visible constructions—together with the reinforcement of speed limit sign associated with the cameras, do the job. If I thought otherwise, I would look at the amendment. We see these cameras working effectively, however. In fact, the complaints tend to come from the other direction—that the cameras are working too effectively, and people feel that they are being penalised when they ought not to be. There are contentions about whether the cameras are giving effect to the right speed limits. That is all bound up in legislation and regulations. The majority of drivers, who obey the law and observe the speed limits, do not need to know where these cameras are, because they are already safely progressing on their way. The cameras, of course, are a very significant part of road safety enforcement, and we think that drivers are all too well aware of where cameras are.