Road Safety Bill [HL]

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 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.