by political editor Paul Francis

Councils have been told they will have to pay for new speed cameras under a future Conservative government and reveal how much each camera raises from fines.

Shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said she would move to stop the "relentless expansion" in speed cameras, end Government funding for new ones and force councils to prove that where they wanted more cameras, they were the only option available.

Councils would be forced to say how much money from fines was raised from each camera individual camera site - something that has not been disclosed before.

Ms Villiers said: "I believe that fixed speed cameras have reached their high watermark in this country. It’s time to put a stop to Labour’s cash cow camera culture. It’s time to say, ‘enough is enough’."

Under Tory plans, the Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership, which was set up in 2002 and has a budget of about £3.2million, would be axed and councils given the responsibility.

The Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership did not comment but issued a statement from the Association of Chief Police Officers.

What do you think? Are speed cameras lifesavers - or just a 'cash cow' for local authorities? Join the debate by clicking on the 'make a comment' tab below.

It said that cameras had been successful in cutting accidents and improving safety.

"In appropriately chosen locations, safety cameras are a proven success story in reducing the numbers of people killed or seriously injured on the roads. Independently compiled research has borne this out over a long period. The most successful camera is one which encourages drivers to abide by the speed limit and therefore generates no revenue at all."

Read Paul Francis' blog on speed cameras here>>>

County politicians gave a cautious reaction. Cllr Nick Chard (Con), KCC cabinet member for highways, said it should be for councils not the Government to decide where cameras should be and if more were needed.

"Where there are local problems, there should be local solutions. Where cameras have been shown to reduce accidents, they have been welcomed."

He accepted it was important not to regard speed cameras as the only option.

"We should be using more education schemes and a whole range of other initiatives."

In 2008, cameras in Kent detected 50,000 offences and since the partnership was set up, there has been a 63 per cent reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at safety camera sites.