Road Safety Bill [HL]

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. 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,"““to tackle the significantly higher incidence of road accidents in disadvantaged areas””." 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. 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.