Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

I beg to move, amendment No. 51, in page 21, line 11, leave out `may' and insert `shall'.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 52, in page 21, line 23, leave out `may' and insert `shall'.

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

The purpose of the amendments, small though they are, is to ensure that money is recycled from the Lord Chancellor to the relevant authorities. Lines 12, 13 and 25 contain the phrase,

whole or any part of the relevant expenditure.

There will be legitimate circumstances in which, however the process is operated, 100 per cent. of the ``claimed money'' would not be refunded, but legitimate and significant expenditures may be met by relevant authorities and my amendments are intended to preclude a payment of nil.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

For a number of reasons, I wish to say a few words in stringent opposition to the amendment. For the record, my constituency—indeed, the whole of North Yorkshire—has no pilot scheme. I make a plea to the Minister to consider amending the original formula. I will not advertise where it is, but one village has speed cameras at its entry and exit, but no film in them. Under the present formula, nowhere in North Yorkshire would qualify for film in the speed cameras. I heard that, on great authority—in fact, I shudder to say that I heard it from the chief constable of North Yorkshire—

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

I want to place on record my admiration for the chief constable of North Yorkshire, with whom I know that the hon. Lady has a good relationship. I have discussed these matters with him on occasion, and I respect his judgment. We listen to the Association of Chief Police Officers when developing such proposals.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

I join the Minister in admiration of the chief constable of North Yorkshire.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I wonder whether the Minister will take the opportunity to say how much he respects the judgment, at all times, of the chief constable of Staffordshire.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are listening to a speech by Miss McIntosh, not the Minister.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

I do not wish to be drawn into provocation. I would merely like to respond warmly to the Minister's remarks. I value the contact that hon. Members are making—in my case, with the current chief constable and his predecessor. That contact helps me to understand why the Bill, and especially the amendment under discussion, fails to achieve what it intends. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to extend the pilot scheme or amend the formula, so that all eligible villages in North Yorkshire have not just a speed camera but one with a film.

I remind the Committee of my interest in the RAC Foundation for Motoring, and the benefits, which I have registered, of my membership of its public policy committee. Among motorists and motor cyclists, two powerful arguments are made against the amendment and the clause. The clause would extend an experiment, which is currently taking place in only 10 areas, allowing the police to hypothecate revenues from speed cameras. I am sure that the RAC would not object to my putting it on record that that sends out the wrong message to motorists and motor cyclists. Speed cameras were introduced to reinforce road safety, not to be a revenue-raising device. I want to lend my support to that point, which was made by the RAC. Motor cyclists would want to make the point that the Bill should be seen as a separate issue to what the clause and amendment are intended to achieve. Given the role of speed cameras in road safety, the intention behind the amendment and the clause is inappropriate.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

Is the object of the clause road safety or revenue-raising? If it is road safety, I support it and the amendments tabled to it.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Order. The hon. Gentleman will find that that is the subject of the next group of amendments, not this group.

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

First, I want to place on the record, for the avoidance of doubt, my respect and admiration for the chief constable of Staffordshire and for his judgment on many matters, some of which I shall not share with the Committee.

I hesitate to go beyond your ruling, Mr. Sayeed, about the subject of the debate. However, the purpose of speed limit and red light enforcement is to reduce death and injury on the roads. It is part of a road safety strategy. It may interest the Committee to know that it is too early to make a full assessment on the basis of the pilot areas—Strathclyde, Essex, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire, South Wales, Cleveland and Thames Valley—but results already show significant advances. In terms of the reduction in personal injury accidents, Strathclyde is 22 per cent. down, Essex is 1 per cent. down, Nottingham is 6 per cent. down, Northamptonshire is 6 per cent. down, Lincolnshire is 12 per cent. down and Cleveland is 15 per cent down. Incidents in which people are killed or severely injured are 42 per cent. down in Strathclyde—an enormous reduction—4 per cent. down in Essex, 34 per cent. down in Nottingham, 15 per cent. down in Northamptonshire, 26 per cent. down in Lincolnshire, 5 per cent. down in Cleveland and 20 per cent. down in Thames Valley. Such reductions are significant. They are not conclusive because we have not yet concluded the pilot period, but they show a move in the right direction.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

Will the Minister comment on a letter by the Association of British Drivers, which stated:

Unfortunately, the Speed Kills dogma...has the exact opposite effect.

What are his views on that statement?

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

First, I do not understand that statement and, secondly, if I did understand it, I would disagree with it.

I believe profoundly that speed kills. The most dramatic illustration of that is a fact: if a child is hit at 20 mph, the child has a 19 in 20 chance of survival. If a child is hit at 40 mph, the child has a one in 20 chance of survival. Such dramatic differences are unanswerable.

The amendment deals with the funding approach. The legal basis for the current pilots is the annual Appropriation Acts, which allow short-term spending on certain pilot schemes. To find a vehicle for funding such schemes was an achievement of my colleagues in the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury. Although it is a short-term approach, we were pleased about it because the schemes are important. The precise purpose of the clause is to remove the reliance on those Appropriation Acts and to establish a clear statutory basis for enabling not only the pilot areas to which I have referred but every force area in the country, including north Yorkshire, to operate such schemes if, after proper assessment of the pilot scheme, we decide that the initial results are beneficial. However, we cannot operate the pilot schemes, which are essentially short- term in character, on the basis of the Appropriation Acts. We are looking for a legal change whereby such schemes can be run on a long-term basis nationally in the event that the pilot schemes are judged to have succeeded.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

Am I misunderstanding the argument? Would a national formula need to be amended to permit the speed cameras to carry films in North Yorkshire?

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

The position at the moment is that the way in which the Exchequer works—a way that was inherited from the evil Conservatives—means that money raised by such matters is sucked straight back into the Exchequer and cannot be recycled. My right hon. Friends the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor agreed with the proposition made by the Home Office, the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Lord Chancellor's Department that it would be far better for road safety reasons if the money were not simply sucked back into the Exchequer but reinvested in road safety measures such as more cameras, putting film in cameras, and so on. Their generous agreement to do that was predicated on the proposition that we should run pilots in a limited number of forces to see whether benefits would be accrued from such an approach. That was a major step forward.

The pilot, which the Association of Chief Police Officers was keen to agree to—I include in my praise of chief constables, Ken Williams the chief constable of the Norfolk constabulary, who chairs the ACPO committee on the matter—was predicated on our need to change the law to create a proper legal basis for such a provision. The clause is meeting what the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) wants. It will establish a legal base for the system that will operate in North Yorkshire and elsewhere, provided that it is judged that the pilot succeeded in its road safety ambitions.

Mr David Kidney (Stafford, Labour)

I would like to clarify the formula. Is the hon. Lady talking about the usual way in which the Government distribute money to police authorities throughout the country according to a national formula, after which time chief constables and the authorities then decide on their priorities? Perhaps the priorities in North Yorkshire do not extend to putting films in speed cameras.

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

My hon. Friend is right. As always in such matters, we are trying to make money work to benefit the community as a whole. That is what is involved here. By raising a revenue chain from income that goes back into improved road safety arrangements—such as camera systems—we hope to establish a virtuous circle of continual improvement of enforcement of the legislation, based on the proposition that speed kills, and should be inhibited.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

I do not wish to labour the point, but it is appropriate to record that we do not have enough police officers in North Yorkshire. A better allocation of resources would have allowed us to put in more police officers and enable them to undertake traffic responsibilities in counties such as North Yorkshire, to carry out the additional responsibilities that they are given in the Bill.

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

I disagree quite profoundly. I understand the pleading for more police officers; it comes from every part of the country, for reasons that I appreciate. In the next hour or so, there will be a debate in the Chamber on those issues, and we all know the allegations that are made. On this subject, however, it is incontrovertible that the effective speed camera operation that we seek to encourage is a more effective way to enforce the law—and to reduce some burdens on the police—than to say that in every village in North Yorkshire, and everywhere else, there should be a police officer with a speed gun.

Mr David Kidney (Stafford, Labour)

Surely it is a better use of resources to have a camera there 24 hours a day than to pay for three police officers to stand in the same spot checking speeds for 24 hours a day.

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

That is an incisive and correct observation. What we are doing will improve the enforcement of the laws of the land, to the benefit of society as a whole.

On the specific point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, the amendments would compel the Lord Chancellor to make payments to responsible authorities. As drafted, the subsections introduce a power for the Lord Chancellor to make payments to responsible authorities. That new power fills the gap in the financial arrangements that I have described between the appropriation orders that are used now and the new arrangements in the Bill.

At present, the Lord Chancellor has the power to pay up to 80 per cent. of the expenditure of responsible authorities in relation to magistrates courts. The balance is met by the responsible local authorities, with the aid of grant provided by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The new power would enable the Lord Chancellor to make payments to meet the full amount of the costs of the courts in dealing with offences recorded by speed or traffic cameras.

I acknowledge that my hon. Friend's purpose is to preclude a payment of nil—to use his words—and I should place on the record that we do not intend that there should be a payment of nil. It would not be appropriate, however, to require the Lord Chancellor to make payments. The existing funding arrangements for magistrates courts generally do not compel the Lord Chancellor to make payments, but empower him to do so; that is the spirit of the Bill. The relevant reference is section 57 of the Justices of the peace Act 1997; the new provisions have been drafted along similar lines.

I encourage my hon. Friend, now that he has heard the debate, to withdraw his amendment; the point that he makes, however, is well taken.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Perhaps it will help his hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment if the Minister will tell us what undertakings he has received from the Lord Chancellor's Department, in relation to clause 37, that payments will be made? Clearly, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is worried in case no payments are made. At present, there is a degree of trust on the Minister's part that payments will be made. What undertakings has he received?

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

As the Committee knows, the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are like the holy trinity, indivisible in all respects, and have no firm public commitments on such matters, but my noble, right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lord Chancellor's Department are committed to the project and to making the payments that I have described. There is a joint approach between the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Home Office, which is supported by the Treasury. The concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about one of the elements wanting to withdraw from the arrangements—and, in his phrase, bringing payment of nil—are not valid. All parts of the Government have agreed to work towards that end.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

If the cameras are successful, everybody obeys the law and, therefore, no fines are generated, will the shortfall be made up? If so, by whom—[Interruption.]

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

I must make one small technical point before I respond to that. The hon. Member for Lichfield, from a sedentary position, used the word ``film''. In fact, digital cameras are being used more and more, and some of the issues about film are not as clear as they were. To reassure the hon. Member for Vale of York, none of her constituents in North Yorkshire should rely on there being no film in the cameras when deciding at what speed they drive through the villages in her constituency.

Were we to reach a universal position of absolute happiness, in which there was no speeding of any kind at any time, some administrative arrangements would be necessary. However, the savings to the state—in the national health service and in every other way—would be so enormous that, to use a phrase that resonates through our history, that would be a price worth paying.

To conclude on a minor point, it is possible that we should allow the DETR to pay money to crime reduction partnerships as opposed to specific agencies. We are considering whether it might be necessary to table an amendment later to address that. On that note, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

The whole House would love to face the quandary posed by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), which would be a wonderful step forward in reducing the 3,000 unnecessary deaths that occur on our roads each year. However, in the spirit of the response of my hon. Friend the Minister, I trust the matter to the current Lord Chancellor, who has been demonstrably co-operative throughout the pilot process. In the long term, there might be a Lord Chancellor in whom I did not have so much confidence, although I suspect that I may have retired by then. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 21, line 22,

after `applies', insert `;

or is expenditure incurred by a responsible authority in the provision of speed cameras in locations where there is a significant likelihood of the presence of road users (including pedestrians) who would be at risk from a vehicle driven at excess speed.'.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 78, in page 22, line 4, at end insert—

`( ) Responsible authorities shall utilize payments made under this clause to install and improve mobile and fixed safety cameras to record and detect excess speed; and to place such devices in locations identified as being places where all road users including pedestrians are most at risk from excess speed.'.

No. 79, in page 22, line 4, at end insert—

`( ) ''Relevant expenditure'' shall be used to ensure, so far as is practicable, that those offences referred to in subsection (5) are reduced and, in doing so, the responsible Authority shall take into account any information that they have identifying areas where those offences are more likely to be committed.'.

No. 53, in page 22, line 6, at end insert—

`( ) The Lord Chancellor in consultation with the Secretary of State shall produce in 2003, and thereafter at such intervals as he shall think fit, a report outlining the extent of the provision of safety cameras, their financial implications and their impact upon casualty reduction; and such a report shall be laid before Parliament.'.

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

Reference was made at length, on Second Reading on 18 December, at columns 31 to 33, to the official Opposition's suspicion that the Government's proposal constituted a stealth tax. The hon. Member for Buckingham stated:

We are also concerned to avoid yet another stealth tax from the Government.—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 33.]

In response to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), he continued:

One can only assume that Ministers are anxious to extract rich pickings from unsuspecting motorists in the form of heavy fines. In so far as that policy is by way of being a stealth tax, it does not commend itself to Her Majesty's official Opposition.—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 35.]

The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), in his response to the debate, took a considerably softer line, with which I have some sympathy. He dealt with how the money was precisely to be used, and, at column 112, on 18 December, set out his points of concern. He went on to say:

However, concerns have been expressed that such measures could introduce something of a stealth tax.—[Official Report, 18 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 112.]

He was not saying that he believed it, but was reflecting the fact that the hon. Member for Buckingham seemed to believe it.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that motorists rightly perceive those proposals—call them a stealth tax or not—as a revenue-raising device?

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

The hon. Lady will hear me develop my argument on this important clause. I do not think that the measure is a revenue-raising device in the context of the taxation of the nation in its entirety. Taxation goes into one pot and is redistributed through various complex mechanisms that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) understands far better than I. We can show motorists that the measure is sensible; in the long run, it will benefit them not simply as motorists but as citizens of the nation as a whole.

Each death on the road has been estimated as costing the nation approximately £1 million. I am going to mention Europe again, which might cause problems. The European Federation of Road Traffic Victims has produced significant research that showed that the cost to nations across Europe was approximately £40 billion a year, which represents an extraordinary waste for the taxpayer. However, we should think, of the pain and suffering caused by the incidents that Members hear about in their constituencies—pain and suffering that is multiplied across Europe.

We are dealing with the biggest unmentioned issue of public health in this country. If we get the road safety strategy right, we can reduce that pain and suffering. As the chairman of the all-party group that supports the charity RoadPeace, I would welcome to our meetings hon. Members who have not yet faced a family who have been bereaved, or had a serious injury in their own families as the result of a road crash. The pain and suffering goes on for many years—it is not a flash in the pan that goes away tomorrow.

Through RoadPeace, we are dealing with the counselling of victims' families after crashes that occurred as long as 10 or 12 years ago. Yesterday, I had a lengthy meeting with colleagues in the Department of Health. We are considering the huge cost of supporting families in terms of the direct impact of the crash on individual members of the family, and the subsequent trauma suffered by other parts of the family. Those costs are enormous, and every small step that the nation, in co-operation with motoring organisations, takes to reduce them is important.

I agree with the tenor of the observation made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire on Second Reading. We must not allow the measure to be perceived as a simple mechanism that local authorities can identify as a nice little earner. That would be intolerable, because it would not command the support of the motorist. I am sure that the hon. Member for Vale of York would agree with that, as that was the spirit of her intervention.

The amendments have been drafted so that we can explore, with the Minister, whether we can strengthen the clause and get the balance right, so that authorities receiving moneys through the process do not see it as a nice little earner. We do not want them simply to use the moneys refunded to them or from other resources to scatter speed cameras liberally in places that they think will be the best earners. The cameras must be located in hot spots—to use another phrase employed by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. They must be put in places that have been identified as a risk to the community—by which I mean all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.

Significant areas of all our constituencies could benefit from such a policy. I have done a lot of work on the A540, where a significant number of deaths have taken place, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) knows well. There is a clear piece of dual carriageway with a gentle curve, but it has a hot spot at a point where oncoming traffic crosses into a side road. Such circumstances require the traffic to slow down. We can effect that by all sorts of mechanisms, some of which are more expensive than others. Major refurbishment of the road design is one approach; we could introduce a roundabout, or traffic lights, or simply reduce the speed limit from 60 mph.

All those mechanisms are worthy—as are speed cameras. I would expect a local authority to target that kind of location in response to the spirit of the clause, not to create a nice little earner but to reduce death and serious injury on the road. The legislation must be drafted in clear language that ensures that it is a road safety measure, as the Minister described it, not a tax-raising measure, as some Members of the Opposition believe it to be. The fact that it is a road safety measure needs reinforcing loudly. Because of the technical deficiencies of my drafting skills, the Minister may not be minded to accept the amendments as they are. However, I hope that he will put it on record, in disseminating information about the Bill, that the provisions must be used in the context of road safety, to reduce the number of awful tragedies that happen every year.

Mr David Kidney (Stafford, Labour)

I speak in support of my amendment No. 53, which is grouped with my hon. Friend's amendments. I support his amendments, too, and his purpose, which is to find the right way within the scope of the Bill to reassure the House and the public at large that the proposals are a road safety measure, not a revenue-raising device. I declare a non-pecuniary interest: I co-chair PACTS, the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety, an all-party parliamentary group and a registered charity, whose purpose is to seek research-based solutions to obstacles to transport safety.

The purpose of amendment No. 53 is to tack on to the end of clause 37 a requirement for the Lord Chancellor to make a report to Parliament. I will deal in a moment with why it should be the Lord Chancellor, when we have had two Ministers from two other Departments here throughout our deliberations.

This is the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, and the crimes that are addressed in clause 37 are speeding and also, although nobody has mentioned it, passing a red traffic light. It should be clear to people that no one will have to pay a fine because of any provision in clause 37, if they do not break the speed limit or disobey a red traffic light.

My final introductory point is that, as the hon. Member for Vale of York pointed out, police authorities do not always have as much money as they would like for local priorities. They would like more, and clause 37 is an attempt to wrest money from the Exchequer and give to police authorities to spend on local priorities. At present, all fines paid by all the lawbreakers covered by clause 37 go to the Exchequer. The Lord Chancellor has no discretion and no choice but to hand over the cash. The purpose of the clause is to allow him to give back some of the money to police and highway authorities to spend on local priorities.

To emphasise that it is a road safety issue, PACTS will be happy to give to anyone who would like them, details of research that someone called Hooke completed for the Home Office in 1996 about the early effects of the use of speed cameras in reducing speeds, and therefore casualties, on the roads. The report stated that over the period when the research was conducted there was a 28 per cent. reduction in deaths and serious injuries in road collisions as a result of speed cameras reducing the speeds of vehicles passing through the areas concerned.

On Second Reading, I spoke of my experience in Staffordshire, where speed cameras have been used for three years, as a result of which there has been a 30 per cent reduction in deaths and serious injuries on the road. On some roads there have been spectacular reductions of up to 60 and 70 per cent. Bearing in mind that nationally, some 3,400 people die every year at present in road crashes, the possibility of shaving off more than 1,000 of those deaths every year is alluring. It would be a good day's work if what we did today brought about that result.

In Staffordshire, the local authority and the police have faced the allegation that they are only trying to raise more money, rather than trying to reduce casualties from road accidents. It has published openly the criteria according to which it decides where to locate speed cameras, so that the public see why cameras are put in one place rather than another. The criteria deal only with how to reduce casualties. In a recent assessment of that policy, and its success in being acceptable to the public, the local authority and the police found that the public accepted it in general, but had some quibbles about it not always being clear that they were breaking a speed limit, because road signs were not as clear as they should be, or it was not plain that there was a speed camera ahead, because it was hidden at the side of the road, where foliage had grown out and partly hidden it, or the markings on the road that the camera used to determine speed might have faded. Even now the authority is amending the criteria to make it clear that they want the cameras to be visible and the speed limit to be clearly shown. They want it to be obvious that there is a place where a speed camera will catch people who exceed the speed limit. It is adjusting the criteria to meet the genuine concerns of the public. That is commendable.

The Lord Chancellor is the means for passing over the money and should therefore be the person who is responsible for telling Parliament what happens to it. My amendment proposes that the Lord Chancellor should lay a report before Parliament, consulting with the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the whole scheme, stating what happens to the money in terms of what safety cameras—that is, speed cameras and cameras at red traffic lights—have been bought, the results of putting them by the side of the road and the effect on casualties. In that way, the House and the public at large would be reassured that the money had been used for the right purpose and had had an impact on casualties. That would have been a good way of reassuring the public. I imagine the Lord Chancellor saying, ``It's a touch unfair, Kidney, for you to do this, because all I'm doing is passing over the money to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who is responsible for road safety, and the Home Secretary, who is responsible for policing. Why lumber me with this responsibility?'' My answer is that the clause states that it is the Lord Chancellor's responsibility to dole out the money. Therefore, it is the Lord Chancellor's responsibility to tell us what he has done with it.

I would be happy to consider a better way if my hon. Friend the Minister is able to suggest one. I know that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has already issued guidance to local authorities and the police about the location of speed cameras. I commend the practice in Staffordshire and suggest that national guidance should follow that example. I hope that my amendment finds favour with the Minister.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Before we continue, may I remind colleagues that we must complete our consideration of this group of amendments by 4 o'clock. I am anxious to allow time for the clause stand part debate. I should be grateful if remarks could be brief.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

That is precisely the point that I wish to make, Mr. Sayeed. I want to speak on clause stand part when we have finished with the amendments.

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

I shall try to be brief in the light of the comments made by the hon. Member for Colchester. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised the subject of the famous stealth tax. This is not a tax but a penalty for an offence. Drivers who keep to the speed limit will not be affected. Only those who break the law will be fined. It is important to distinguish between this and the general arguments about charges and taxes. This is a penalty for a criminal offence.

Amendment No. 53 seeks to provide regular information. I fully support the intention behind the amendment—it is well made—and I have corresponded with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford about the points concerned. He referred in his speech to the guidance that the DETR is producing on the appropriate siting of safety cameras and the fact that it will be updated as part of the implementation of the national roll-out. A comprehensive handbook is being produced for the police, local authorities and others who wish to form partnerships as part of the national roll-out.

Cameras have already been shown to have significant road safety benefits—I will not go through those arguments again—but an important part of the pilot scheme is to monitor their performance. When the results of the monitoring become available, they will be made available to the House. The final report on how the pilots have fared will be produced after March 2002, when they are due to end, and they will then be made publicly available. Even if national roll-out starts later this year, it is unlikely to be completed within 12 to 18 months. A report required by Parliament in 2003 will not give us a great deal of information.

We believe that there are enough systems in place to demonstrate the effectiveness of the scheme, and I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford to consider withdrawing his amendment, because it would be burdensome to extend the scope of the clause in the way that he suggests. I can give him some undertakings. First, we will publish a report on the results of the pilots when we have them. Secondly, when national roll-out is substantially complete and has been working for a while, we will publish a further report to Parliament. Thirdly, I will discuss with my colleagues in the DETR and the Lord Chancellor's Department what form of regular reporting regime, whether through Select Committees or whatever other means, might be a good way of getting to the facts on the matter.

I cannot go all the way that my hon. Friend suggests in his amendment, but I can go some of the way. I hope that he will take that into account when he considers how to proceed with his amendment.

On amendments Nos. 77 to 79, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, we strongly support the intention behind the amendments, because it is vital that speed cameras are placed where they are likely to have the most benefit in terms of reducing collisions and the severity of collisions. Roads circular 1/92 states:

In developing strategies for deployment and in identifying individual sites, authorities will need to bear in mind that the ultimate objective is to maximise the road safety benefits which can be achieved in any given area.

I will reinforce that point later. As I said, we intend to update the guidance, based on experience of camera operation, but it would be a mistake to be too prescriptive in legislation. There is a great deal of experience in local authorities and police forces of how best to deploy cameras, and it is important that a local judgment is made about where those cameras might be of most benefit to road safety. Local authorities and the police have at their fingertips all the data on casualties, which allows targeting of collision hot spots of the type described. That is why we should provide guidance and support, but not be overly prescriptive.

One example from one of the pilot areas—Northamptonshire—is of a head teacher requesting the police to enforce the speed limit outside the school by deploying a mobile camera unit for an hour when pupils are entering or leaving the premises. That is a perfectly legitimate use of cameras to relieve road safety anxiety and prevent accidents and casualties among a group of road users who are especially at risk.

On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friends will not press their amendments. I want to state categorically that, in all respects, the motivation behind the proposed legislation is road safety and the benefits that that brings to society.

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

In view of your observations, Mr. Sayeed, I shall be brief. There is undoubtedly evidence that speed cameras, cameras at junctions, and better warning signals about cameras cause people to reduce their speed. My hon. Friend the Minister has put it on the record that placement of cameras under the scheme must benefit road safety. That is the important point, which must be made loudly. I am sure that it will receive the support of most motorists, who realise that they are driving a tonne of steel, which is an extremely dangerous weapon if misused. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

My hon. Friends and I tabled amendment No. 88, which was not selected for debate. We therefore take the opportunity of this stand part debate to air our concerns. I shall not advise my hon. Friends to press the matter to a vote, although, depending on the response and reflections on the matter in the interim, we may be inclined to develop our arguments further on Report. We take a genuinely different and directly contrary view on the matter from that of the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney).

There are serious concerns, which we share, about a massive and indiscriminate increase in speed and traffic enforcement cameras around the country. It has been debated extensively in the media, among other places, and hon. Members will be aware that several campaigning newspapers—if I may deploy that term—have taken up the cudgels in opposition to what they regard as an undesirable development. The official Opposition oppose the widespread roll-out of speed cameras on all of our roads. Speed cameras should be sited sensibly to deter speeding on dangerous roads or on roads that encourage, by their construction, speed in excess of the limit. They should not be used as another source of stealth taxation.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only should there not be a widespread roll-out of speed cameras but that there should be a wholesale review of speed limits, which in certain areas are too high or too low? Does he not find it strange that there is perhaps a tacit agreement by the Government that the speed limits on motorways are inappropriate, by virtue of the fact that there are no speed cameras on motorways, except where there are roadworks?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

There are certainly arguments about speed limits and the case for a review thereof, and the extent to which, in practice as opposed to theory, the actual speed limit is not the guideline on the strength of which prosecutions are made. In practice, if a person is a few miles over the speed limit—I do not, of course, travel over the speed limit—he is relatively unlikely to be fined or prosecuted. If a person is many miles over the limit, he is more likely to be prosecuted. There is a degree of arbitrariness.

In the United Kingdom there is, on average, one automatic speed camera for every 30 miles of road. Under the new proposals, they will be more frequent, and the police will be allowed to keep the profits from speed camera fines. We place safety at the heart of our transport policy, but whereas others take a different view, we do not believe in needless regulation of speed.

Ms Helen Jones (Warrington North, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

No I shall not, because there is little time left.

Speed cameras were intended not to be a source of tax—we can re-examine the issue, perhaps on Report—but to prevent accidents and control excessive speed. A stretch of road may be safe, but also be particularly wide or straight. That may encourage people to speed and should be prevented by visible warnings of cameras. Drivers should be alerted to the presence of speed cameras, which should not be unduly hidden. [Laughter.] Certainly, speed cameras should not be used simply as a revenue collector. In some countries speed cameras are painted in bright colours or are highlighted by warning signs—a fact of which the hon. Members who are laughing are apparently ignorant.

There is a balance to be struck. There should be awareness of speed cameras, but they should not be unduly intrusive into the local life of the community. In recent years, there has been a proliferation of speed cameras. The number of random speeding convictions increased by 712,000 between 1985 and 1998. Of that, the main increase—about 443,000 convictions; on average about 89,000 a year—took place over five years from 1993 to 1998.

Helen Jones rose—

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

The British Motorcyclists Federation has argued for the deletion of the clause. We, being very moderate and reasonable, are not going that far today. The federation says that the clause is based on the assumption that speed is the main cause of accidents. It believes that too much emphasis is placed on speeding as opposed to dangerous driving, and that the clause militates against improving standards.

Helen Jones rose—

Mr. Bercow: It also argues that the police are over-zealous in prosecuting speeding offences because they are easier to take to court than offences of dangerous driving, and that the clause would reinforce that trend.

Now, as the hon. Member for Warrington, North is so anxious to favour us with her wisdom—I have the highest regard for the intelligent contributions that she normally offers in the House—I happily give way to her.

Ms Helen Jones (Warrington North, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—eventually. His whole argument rests on the premise that people have something to fear from speed cameras, but law-abiding people have nothing to fear from them. How does he reconcile his attitude to speed cameras with the constant demand from the Opposition for more closed circuit television cameras?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

There are other arguments relating to driving, which are of greater significance. Dangerous driving, as opposed to driving in excess of the speed limit, should not be ignored or downgraded by the general focus of the debate.

There is also a real issue of cost and it would be massively expensive to have a universal or even a large-scale rollout of speed cameras throughout the country, despite the enthusiasm of some Labour Members. That is not a realistic proposition, even if it were a desirable one. For them to, deliberately or inadvertently, raise the expectation of such a prospect—when it is about as unrealisable as all the high-falutin' declarations and wild promises of Ministers— is supremely unwise. That is why we raised our concern. We are perfectly entitled to do so, and I make no apology for it.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

It seems hardly worth while starting. Given that the sitting is ending at 4 o'clock, I shall reserve my comments for when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. I must put on the record how much I deplore the fact that some members of the Committee have hogged the time available and prevented others from speaking and that the hon. Member for Lichfield made a speech, left the Room, returned and started intervening. We are discussing a serious subject. We have not been given enough time to debate it. I have been given less than 60 seconds to make my point. I shall not even attempt to start to make it; I shall save my arguments for another time.

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

I shall explain why the clause should stand part of the Bill. We do not agree with the British Motorcyclists Federation. It is important to fight speeding. We do not accept that the measure is a stealth tax. It is a penalty for those who behave illegally and cause danger to the rest of society.

It being Four o'clock, The Chairman put the Question necessary under the terms of the programme resolution to complete the business.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Adjourned till Tuesday 23 January at half-past Ten o'clock.