| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I rise briefly to support the amendment. As my noble friend said, and as my noble friend Viscount Simon said in the debate on the previous group of amendments, there is an increased likelihood of fatalities in areas of high deprivation. This seems a sensible amendment and I hope that the Minister will look at it favourably.
Lord Bradshaw: I think that I support the amendment. In fact, the best ways to reduce child casualties are through such initiatives as the Better Ways to School campaign. But, the competition in our county for money for those schemes is fierce—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, knows that. I received a copy of a letter from a head teacher of a local school, which said that a little bit of money was available and that she had seven days in which to submit a scheme. Her area is deprived and many children walk to school along busy roads. I know, as do the county council, of a number of measures that could well be taken to make the way safe.
We return to the question that we raised at the beginning—it is a matter of resources. The reason that children in the higher social categories are not killed is that most of them do not walk or cycle along roads—they are conveyed in various types of vehicle, to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, frequently refers. They are not exposed to danger. They are inside safe vehicles.
It is also necessary that after school such children are looked after, because the children to whom the noble Baroness referred are those who often go home to an
27 Jun 2005 : Column 34
empty house and need to be cared for. That means that people have to pay for it, certainly in my local authority area—there is no local authority funding for after school clubs. We shall return to the question of how we fund the areas to which the noble Baroness referred and I hope that she will support us when we divide the House over the need for more money to be spent on road safety, because I am at one with her. These people's lives can be saved, but it takes money.
Lord Hanningfield: I support the amendment in principle but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, it is a question of resources. It is also a matter of localism. Every school and area has a different solution. We cannot sit here and debate, and have a national scheme. It is up to local people to work out what the scheme should be in their area to benefit its children. Knowing my county as well as I do, I know that there are different solutions all over it. There is no magic solution for one area.
Furthermore, with the development of extended schools that will support families as well as children there will, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, be many more pre-school classes, breakfast classes and classes in the evening. There will also be more training. What happens now in deprived areas is that families do not give their children the training on using the roads that they ought to have. That solution needs to be sorted out in school as well. But that is what localism is about. The Government have spoken about localism a lot; I am trying to practise it in my area. We do not have central schemes or central initiatives. Local initiatives are needed to solve these problems, but with money, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said. I am certain that they can be sorted out with some resources. I support the amendment in principle and will look at it as we go on through the Bill.
Lord Berkeley: I support the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton. It is moving towards the questions that came up in the debates we had during the previous Parliament on the School Transport Bill, which did not get through. Last week, I participated in a debate with some local authority people about the problems of school transport.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is quite right. In less deprived areas people bring their little children to school in large Chelsea tractors, as I call them, and there is no problem. But those people are usually very vociferous in asking for whatever money there is for road safety improvements, school improvements or whatever. It is not just that fewer children go to school by car in areas of high deprivation and more of them walk, but that there is less likely to be restrictions on speeds and access for cars and I hope we will discuss those matters later in this Committee. Everything conspires against schools in deprived areas getting the facilities and safety features on the roads that are
27 Jun 2005 : Column 35
necessary to reduce the terribly high level of child casualties. I support my noble friend's amendment and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I welcome the debate that we have just had because my noble friend's amendment has given rise to an opportunity to highlight a key road safety priority for the Government. We are aware that in international comparisons we do well over a range of comparators, but child deaths is not one of them. Our record is not good. The problem has been identified for a number of years and it is important that we address ourselves to the issue.
If I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment, which I shall certainly do, it is not because in any way, shape or form I shall make any contribution that detracts from the value of her remarks and those of other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. All the points have been valid. My noble friend indicated that she was not entirely sure that this amendment was located in the right place in the Bill. I shall identify to her why it would be detrimental to the quality of the legislation that we are putting before the House, while recognising the validity of her argument.
4.45 pm
The amendment would prioritise schemes addressing child casualties in deprived areas over other schemes. We recognise the need for prioritisation. The 2002 spending review White Paper strengthened the Government's casualty reduction target,
Our aim is to reduce casualties in deprived areas by a greater percentage than in the country as a whole. In April 2003 we published guidance called Tackling the Road Safety Implications of Disadvantage, which, as my noble friend indicated, impacts very significantly on children in disadvantaged areas, but of course on the whole area of disadvantage. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that many factors contribute to this situation. Therefore, we need a strategy which deals with the total problem.
As a result of our guidance, Tackling the Road Safety Implications of Disadvantage, English authorities have been asked to submit a statement as part of the local transport plan annual progress report outlining how they plan to tackle road safety problems in their deprived areas.
Through the Neighbourhood Road Safety Initiative, the Inner City Road Safety Demonstration Project and Kerbcraft—Child Pedestrian Training, we have allocated over £33 million to local highway authorities. In quoting that figure I may raise that hoary issue of whether we are going to spend the whole of our time on the Bill debating resources. I am seeking to keep on the path of the righteous by concentrating on the structure of the Bill. I merely emphasise that to convince my noble friend and other noble Lords who supported the amendment that this is an important area of concern to the Government.
27 Jun 2005 : Column 36
All those initiatives are aimed at tackling road safety problems, including child road safety problems in areas of high deprivation. But—and I am afraid there is a "but", and it is on this basis that I hope my noble friend will withdraw her amendment—Clause 1 allows for payments to be made for all road safety initiatives. Depending on who the scheme is aimed at, grants have the potential to improve road safety for children and for disadvantaged groups. While there is a specific focus on disadvantage, in our current grant-funded projects we need—and against a background where we expect our legislation to be valid over a considerable number of years—to ensure that Clause 1 is as flexible as possible so that we can respond to particular road safety issues as they arise.
So, although it is important—and one recognises that currently this is a key priority for us—it would not be right to establish in stone, or at least in the Bill, a priority which would last against developing events when we might need areas of flexibility and the ability to operate change.
Therefore, we should not seek in the clause to highlight one particular current road safety issue, we should recognise what the clause does, which is to create the framework for the allocation of resources. However, I would reassure my noble friend, who has spoken with passion, as have other Members of the Committee, about the issue, that it is a key priority, but I ask her not to write the provision on the face of the Bill. I hope she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornton: I start by thanking noble Lords for their support and for their informed remarks in support of the amendment. Before the Minister's remarks I thought that this modest amendment might not be in the right place, but as I listened to him talking about priorities I wondered whether it is in the right place if we want to set priorities about what the Bill aims to do. In a way, the test against which this Bill needs to be measured is the impact it will have on, particularly, children and children in deprived areas.
I thank my noble friend for his remarks and, indeed, for reassuring us that the issue is a priority for the Government. I shall read his remarks with care. I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 not moved.]
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |