---

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, those of us who think that the present Home Office has a track record of illiberality of which it should be sincerely ashamed but unfortunately is not would like to know about the following matters. First, the noble Baroness said that no harm had come to people who had been sent back. What about the lady who attempted to commit suicide by jumping out of her flat and broke her back? What about the fact that the situation has become infinitely worse over the past week or two, with the dreadful bulldozing and clearing of people from Bulawayo? If the Government are so keen to do something about the matter, why did they do absolutely nothing about it at the last European Council meeting, when the noble Baroness said that they were doing everything that they
 
27 Jun 2005 : Column 30
 
could? It seems to me that they could at least have discussed the matter, even if that in itself might not necessarily have achieved much.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: First, my Lords, it would be impossible for me to say that no harm had come to any individual. All I can say is that we have no evidence to support any harm having taken place. Also, in relation to the efforts of this Government, noble Lords know only too well the energy that this Government have put into issues concerning Africa. Of course one does not want to go back over records, but since 1997 this Government have a proud record in supporting and facilitating democracy, freedom and liberty on the African continent.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I declare an interest, as for some eight years until the mid-1990s I was the director of the Refugee Council. While I was there, we were often desperately concerned that individuals were sent back by the then government of Britain. We attempted to follow up what had happened to them, and unfortunately in quite a number of instances they disappeared without trace. I am not talking about Zimbabwe—I am talking about other African countries where there was also a high level of repression and abuse of human rights at the time.

I know that my noble friend is in enormous difficulties in defending the position that she has to defend this afternoon. I understand that individual claims for asylum must be decided on an individual basis, but I put it to her that there are no satisfactory means of establishing whether people who have been returned are safe. My noble friend quoted five instances; but from the figures that she mentioned earlier a much larger number than that have been returned. My fear is that without proper media there and without the Government there—I am not sure whether UNHCR is there monitoring this—that people are being sent back into danger to face persecution, imprisonment, torture, and possibly death. That is not good enough.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, again, of course I understand what my noble friend says. We have received uncorroborated reports that a small number of failed asylum seekers may have been mistreated. There is no corroborating evidence about that. As noble Lords know, we do not routinely monitor the treatment of returnees to any country. We would not remove them if we considered that they were likely to suffer persecution on their return. However, as I have made plain on a number of occasions, we will investigate any reports of ill-treatment that are brought to our attention.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, in what way were those five in Zimbabwe contacted? Will she comment on the fifth case who did not respond? Given that the British Government have no representation in Zimbabwe, as has been pointed out before, were they contacted by telephone? Were those telephones tapped? Were those people free to say what had actually happened to them? Will she comment in more detail on those cases?
 
27 Jun 2005 : Column 31
 

Given that a large proportion of the asylum cases that were originally rejected are then overturned on appeal, how can we have confidence in what the Home Office is doing on an individual basis? That is especially so as one of the cases that came to public attention this week was of a known member of the opposition party. How come that person was turned down in the first place?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, one of the beauties of us having a democracy is that we have independent courts that make independent decisions; they hear evidence and determine on it. This country cannot by executive decision decide the outcome of any individual case. Of course I cannot say what evidence went before the tribunal; and I cannot say the basis of the appeal. I can say that the system provides for proper representations and proper opportunities for cases to be determined, and then for an independent judgment at the end of the day by the court on the outcome, with a proper position in relation to appeal. That is a robust, democratic system.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, are the Government really saying that the five individual cases that they have heard about, through some means that we are uncertain of, provide the Home Office with a sufficient evidential base to justify the policy, particularly against the background of the paranoia and savagery of that revolting regime?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the base is not in relation to those five cases. I told your Lordships about those because that is the information that we have had, and that is the research that we have done. We rely on the integrity of the system now in place, which allows the acuity that we think necessary for the determination to be made in each individual case on whether a return is in compliance with ECHR and the 1951 convention.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I must apologise for having not been present during the Statement. Does the Minister accept that a record of having been a member of the opposition in Zimbabwe is not, by any means, the main reason why someone might run into difficulties on return? In the present state of Mugabe's paranoia, particularly about the role of this country and the spies about whom he keeps talking, surely anyone deported to Zimbabwe against their will is liable to be treated with extreme suspicion, if not worse.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot comment on whether people would be treated with extreme suspicion; I certainly see that it may be the case. The problem is not that they are treated with extreme suspicion, but how they will be treated in terms of their freedoms and liberties and whether they fall within the categorisation that we have. That is a
 
27 Jun 2005 : Column 32
 
different matter. Those are issues on which we have evidence and, as I have said on a number of occasions, that have to be determined by the court.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, for countries where there has been known evidence of repressive regimes, have we not been able to give people asylum simply because the regime to which they were to be sent back was too bad to allow any confidence in their safety? I am thinking of the days of the communist regimes, for example.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is why I talked particularly in relation to Zimbabwe. It was precisely why, before November last year, the decision about the raise was made. I think that I have now said about 15 times—maybe more; Hansard will determine it—that the issue will be kept under constant review. For all the reasons that I have given already, the decision—it has been made on the evidence currently before the Government—is that a moratorium is not currently justified. However, my right honourable friends will continue to deliberate on that and come to a decision.

Road Safety Bill [HL]

4.32 pm

House again in Committee on Clause 1.

Baroness Thornton moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 9, at end insert ", with particular regard to schemes aimed to reduce child casualties in areas of high deprivation"

The noble Baroness said: My noble friend will recognise that the amendment may not be in quite the right place in the Bill. However, when examining this piece of legislation, which contains many good things, I was struck by the lack of explicit attention given to improving road safety for child pedestrians and cyclists. I therefore thought it might be useful to have, at this early stage in Committee, a discussion about that lack.

Overall, it must be said that we have a good road safety record in this country, but that is overshadowed by our poor record on child pedestrian safety. The latest figures show that 2,381 child pedestrians were killed or seriously injured on our roads in 2003, with more than 10,000 child pedestrians injured. That is not a record of which any of us could be proud, and compares unfavourably with many other European countries. We also have a high number of child cyclist accidents on our roads. In 2003, 595 children on bicycles were killed or seriously injured on the roads.

Furthermore, research shows that there is a strong correlation between deprivation and the number of child road casualties. That was referred to by my noble friend Lord Simon earlier. Children from the lowest social class are five times more likely to die in road accidents than those from the highest social class. The research also highlighted that child pedestrians in the most deprived areas were more at risk, with more than
 
27 Jun 2005 : Column 33
 
a quarter of child pedestrian casualties occurring in the most deprived 10 per cent of wards. Anyone would agree that that was not acceptable.

I remember a speech made by the Prime Minister in March 2000, in which he outlined the Government's road safety strategy. He rightly pointed out the need to reduce the number of child pedestrian casualties and to do more to target those children who live in deprived areas. The amendment, which has the support of a coalition of over 75 children's organisations—and NCH, the children's charity, and the End Child Poverty campaign—aims to do that by targeting resources to schemes that aim to reduce child road accidents in areas of high deprivation. Of course, this is only part of a package of measures that is needed—but is very important. I am pleased that other amendments, such as imposing a 20 mph speed limit for restricted roads, have been tabled.

I am pleased that the Government have put in place an ambitious target to reduce the number of children who are killed or seriously injured. But, if we are to achieve those targets, special attention needs to be given to reducing child pedestrian and cyclist casualties in highly deprived areas, otherwise we shall not reach the targets that we have set. As ever, words and targets alone are not sufficient. Action and funding are required.

The amendment sends a clear message: that reducing child road casualties should be a priority for the Government and I hope that the Minister will take seriously the points that I have raised. I beg to move.

---