My noble friend has, of course, a silken tongue. He is flattering to all of your Lordships who have contributed to this discussion. Incidentally, I should perhaps have declared an interest at the beginning—I am a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, and an advisor to the board of Transport for London, both of whom are parties to the London Safety Camera Partnership.
I am intrigued by my noble friend saying that the Department for Transport was considering all of the cases for new safety cameras on their merits. My understanding is that the Department for Transport has written to every single safety camera partnership in the country and told them that they would not be approving any of the proposals for operational cases for 2005–06. I would be grateful if my noble friend could clarify the reason for that, and how it squares with the laudable aim of considering each case on its merits.
Road Safety Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Harris of Haringey
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 26 October 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Road Safety Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
674 c1219 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:57:23 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270466
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270466
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270466