Proceeding contribution from Stephen Ladyman (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 6 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill (HL).
Road Safety Bill [Lords]
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. The key point is that none of us wants cameras to be deployed simply for the purpose of raising money and increasing income. It is key that if the powers that we have introduced in this amendment, which the Lords wanted us to introduce, were used, in order to stop that happening, it would be necessary for some other mechanism to be used in conjunction with that. The Government do not believe that the powers are necessary because we have already achieved the objective that their Lordships wanted in the first place by different means. What we have done is to end from 1 April next year the so-called netting-off arrangements—the scheme whereby camera income could only be used for more cameras and any surplus went to the Treasury. We have said that the total sum of the fines which will go to the Treasury in future—approximately £110 million a year—will be paid back to the local authorities as road safety grants. Therefore, while the changes introduced by the Government are in place, it is correct that the money going back to the councils can only be used for road safety and measures relating to that. As the Treasury has agreed to that amount of money for four years, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) is also absolutely right that what the Government have done is an improvement on what their Lordships intended, because that income is guaranteed—and there are signs that the fine income is starting to go down. However, the Treasury will carry on paying—at this rate, for the next four years—for road safety improvements. Therefore, more of the sort of road safety improvements that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) mentioned will be able to take place than would be the case if we were to use the powers that we are accepting that their Lordships want us to put in the Bill. Nevertheless, their Lordships were keen for this power to be in the Bill because they felt that that was necessary. To make sure that we demonstrate compromise in our willingness to get this Bill through, we are prepared to correct their Lordships amendments, and to accept them. I hope that, on that basis, the House can support our amendment. Question put and agreed to. Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof agreed to.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 451 c643-4
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Accidents Cameras EU law Fines Labelling Large goods vehicles Income International law Motor vehicles Roads Safety Safety measures Speed limits
- Legislation
- Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-05-13 12:11:03 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358302
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358302
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358302