Road Safety Bill [HL]

In this debate there is a danger of reiterating some of the issues that we discussed a short while ago when we considered safety cameras. Suffice it to say that it was recognised in many parts of the House that the safety camera programme is delivering positive results under the current rules on what the income can be used to fund. There is no reason to change those rules at present. The great danger is that we would fall into the trap that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is very keen to avoid. There is a contention that safety cameras are some form of additional taxation of the motorist because the fines generate a surplus. If we put that surplus in the hands of decision-takers concerned with the deployment of safety cameras—the partnerships and local authorities—we would be in danger of encouraging the feeling that cameras were being deployed because there was a shortage of cash for well intentioned schemes. We seek to avoid that. It is important that the nation is aware that speed cameras are safety devices and are part of our road safety provision. They are not to raise money. None of the money is used for those who take the decisions. If we agreed to the amendment, we would blunder into the trap and suggest that cameras might represent revenue-raising devices. They are not. The cameras are to enforce speed limits and the money is redeployed to those responsible for them and their deployment. The great danger is that, if we brought the matter down to local authority level, the contention sometimes wrongly and unfairly made about cameras would be given some weight. It is a position that we are not prepared to adopt. At present, the police and local authorities have no incentive to deploy cameras for any wider reason than the sole purpose of guaranteeing safety. The danger is that, if cameras became a revenue-raising device, however well intentioned the additional purposes, they would destroy the public confidence that we need to develop in them. No one pretends that this issue has been won at present. That is why we had our earlier debate on the independent evaluation of how effective the safety cameras are. I recognise the virtues of the noble Baroness’s proposal—that she is seeking to bring additional resources to benign purposes—but we must resist her amendment on the grounds that I have outlined.