§ 6. Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
What recent representations he has received on speed cameras. 
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)
We have recently received a number of representations on speed cameras, many from road safety organisations supporting the policy to enforce speed limits using cameras. Those opposed to the policy have expressed themselves mainly through the media. Safety cameras have shown repeatedly that they reduce accidents, deaths and serious injuries, typically by 35 per cent. at camera sites and 4 per cent. across whole areas where cameras are deployed.
§ Mr. Swire
Given that speed cameras now raise £17 million a year for the Treasury, will the Minister confirm that a further 3 million motorists are likely to be caught next year by the reduction of speed limits in some areas, and will he state how much extra revenue he hopes that will generate for the Chancellor's increasingly depleted Treasury?
§ Mr. Jamieson
I cannot predict how many tickets will be issued next year: that will depend on how many 147 people stick to the speed limit. The hon. Gentleman might like to look at one of the cameras in his constituency—the one at Ebdford Dip on the A376 between Exmouth and Exeter. Before the camera was deployed, there were seven accidents involving death or serious injury and 11 involving personal injury. Since May last year, there have been no collisions. If he wants that camera removed, perhaps he should first talk to his constituents.
§ Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) (Lab)
My hon. Friend may be aware that in November 2002 digital cameras were fitted on a notorious road in my constituency—the Stocksbridge bypass. The report on the first six months indicates a very positive impact on driver behaviour. When the full-year report comes out this March will the Minister meet my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and me to consider the scope for further improvement on that road?
§ Mr. Jamieson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the role that cameras play in reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads. The evidence is that the vast majority of lives saved are those of pedestrians, who are mainly children and elderly people. I look forward eagerly to the full-year analysis of the figures on cameras, and we shall examine it carefully to see whether any changes need to be made. I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend at that time to discuss with him how cameras have contributed to the reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured on roads in his area.
§ Mr. Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
Last week, the other Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), said on "The World at One" that he would not dismiss out of hand my proposal for a national audit of the positioning of speed cameras. Last night, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) did dismiss it out of hand. There is clearly deep chaos and confusion in the Department about that issue. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the common-sense approach of the hon. Member for Harrow, East or his own more hysterical approach is being taken?
§ Mr. Jamieson
We will look carefully at the analysis. It needs a cold, clear, objective analysis, not the more emotive approach taken by the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he is familiar with the A292 in his constituency—the Hythe road. Before the camera was fitted on that road, there were 27 crashes, in seven of which people were killed or seriously injured. Since the camera was fitted in May last year, there has been just one crash, resulting in a slight injury.
§ Mr. Green
It is interesting that the Minister wants a partial audit, but the Secretary of State and his Department admit that there are no proper full records of how many cameras there are or where they are. That is why we need the audit that I am calling for. The Government invited us last night to do the audit ourselves, so let us start with the camera on the A45 near Birmingham airport, which the police have agreed to 148 disable, admitting that it was in the wrong place. Will the Minister now make the commitment that he failed to make last night that motorists who have been convicted on the basis of a camera that the police admit is in the wrong place should be compensated for the fines they have had to pay?
§ Mr. Jamieson
It is significant that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the camera in his own area and its success in reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured. He may want to talk to some of his councillors in Ashford, who apparently are campaigning to have cameras fitted where they do not meet the criteria that we set out. He mentioned the camera on the A45—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen for a moment and stop chuntering. I am familiar with the camera on the A45, near the airport. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had a letter written to each of the partnerships, asking them to look carefully at each camera. On the strength of the responses to the letter, that camera is being removed. That leaves 3,999. Would the hon. Gentleman like to suggest some others?
§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend make it clear that speed cameras are placed in any area only when there is clear evidence of accidents and deaths, and that those who disable speed cameras are contributing directly to the demise of people and should be made liable for that?
§ Mr. Jamieson
I can confirm that the cameras in the partnership arrangements are put only at sites where there is a record of injuries or serious injuries. There must also be a record to show that those are caused by vehicles speeding. The rather hysterical debate that there has been among a minority has given succour to those who wanted to destroy the cameras. If the cameras in the two examples that I have given were destroyed or removed, more people would be killed and seriously injured.