Motor Vehicles Rear Seat Safety Provisions (Hansard, 1 May 1984)

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the number of persons killed and injured in motor cars by providing for the compulsory fitting of rear seat belts and the compulsory provision of anchorage points for child restraint systems in all new cars. The measure is a modest one but it is a vital next stage on the long road to greater safety and a reduction in the terrible toll of death and injury on the roads. The measure should have been taken years ago. The compulsory fitting of front seat belts preceded their compulsory wearing by several years. The wearing of such seat belts was introduced far too late in this country, thanks to the overstated and exaggerated arguments of libertarians, who thought that it was a basic British freedom to go head first through a windscreen. That measure has been a tremendous success, as its advocates always thought it would be.

Our hospitals are treating 20 per cent. fewer car crash casualties. The number of car accident victims requiring inpatient treatment has come down by 35 per cent. since seat belt wearing became compulsory. There have been around 500 fewer deaths and 7,000 fewer serious injuries since the introduction of front seat belts. The only important question in relation to front seat belts is, what took us so long and how many lives would we have saved if we had acted earlier? That is the importance of this measure. We must not make the same mistake by delaying once again. This country should be in the vanguard of road safety, not dragging behind in the guard's van. We must prepare now for the day we ensure that seat belts are worn in the rear of cars as well as at the front.

It is clear that wearing rear seat belts will save lives and prevent injury. We must prepare for the day when everyone will wear them by requiring that they must be fitted in all new cars. It is getting late already for that proposal because 11 countries, including Australia, Canada and the United States, France, Sweden and West Germany already require rear seat belts to be fitted. Unless we are prepared to say that the lives and limbs of British citizens are less important than those of citizens of other nations, we must do that same.

For some of life's experiences, the back seat of a car can be a very comfortable and pleasant place. But when the car is moving, the back seat can be a very dangerous place. It stands to reason that passengers travelling in the rear of a car are marginally safer than those in the front. I stress that that difference is only marginal.

Most impacts are made at the front of vehicles. Rear-seat passengers are, therefore, in danger of being thrown forward. Indeed, children, who are smaller and lighter, may become missiles thrown to the front of the car against the seats, the windscreen or even the bonnet. At 30 mph, the average passenger who is thrown forward in a collision exerts a force of 2½ tonnes. That is a massive force with which to be hit in the back.

In 1982 there were 22,000 injuries to rear-seat passengers. There were mostly neck, face and head injuries. One fifth of them were serious injuries, or fatal. Twenty-eight per cent. were to children of 13 and younger, which is a horrifying total. The cost of treating those 232 victims of accidents must be about £70 million per annum. That cost, and the injuries, could be avoided if rear-seat belts were worn.

An American study shows that rear-seat belts would have saved three quarters of rear-seat passenger fatalities. A Swedish study shows that rear-seat belts would reduce injuries by 28 per cent. On that basis, I calculate that rear-seat belts, if they were worn by all passengers in rear-seats, would save about 300 lives each year. That figure includes 100 front-seat passengers who are killed in accidents by the impact of rear-seat passengers. The general rule of thumb would apply to rear-seat belts as well as to belts used in the front of vehicles. The proportion of serious and fatal injuries among belt wearers is half that of non-belt wearers. We must, therefore, take this necessary first step.

I am surprised that the Government, who already have the power to take this step by amending the 1978 construction and use regulations, have not done so. The fitting of anchorage points for seat belts has been required since 1981, but those are not necessarily suitable for the best child restraint systems. The Government have not required the fitting of seat belts, which they should have done.

The Bill will therefore help the Government on their way. When the belts are fitted, passengers will begin to wear them. As belts become more common, we shall be able to move to the next stage, which I regard as inevitable too: provision for the compulsory wearing of seat belts.

The measure is so obvious and necessary that I do not see any arguments against it. The libertarian argument, which delayed the compulsory wearing of front-seat belts for so long, cannot be raised against the Bill. The only compulsion is on manufacturers, which will be wholly beneficial. It will force our motor industry to make progress.

Those who criticise the measure because of its effects on the motor industry must ask themselves two questions. First, is it not far better and safer for seat belts to be fitted by manufacturers than to have them fitted later, even to available anchorage points, by dealers? The Consumers Association has found through its testing and research on cars that if one buys a car and then decides to have rear seat belts fitted by the dealer one is likely to find that the dealer does a poor job. Indeed, belts fitted in that way have occasionally proved useless in Consumers Association tests. If the belts are fitted by manufacturers—that is done in about 5 per cent. of cars, which are mostly, to our shame, foreign—it is a different story. The fittings are safe and secure and effective.

The second question is whether the world is not becoming more safety conscious. Firms such as Volvo have made safety the keynote of their advertising and sales campaigns. More and more countries require rear seat belts to be fitted as a standard feature. It is cheaper to have them fitted by the manufacturer. It is bound to be cheaper if the belts can be fitted in volume production. That policy will become essential for sales of British vehicles outside this country. Rear seat belts will be an additional aspect of customer appeal, with which our industry must keep up if it is to sell overseas.

The arguments are clear. The case is compelling. It is supported by eminent authorities, who have strong views and expertise on the subject. They range from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to the British Medical Association and the all-party parliamentary group 233 on transport safety. Moreover, an opinion survey which we commissioned on this point showed that the measure is supported by two thirds of our electorate. More important, it is not just time for this inevitable next step in the long struggle for safety; it is almost past that time.

The Government have to act. I hope that the House will tell them to do so by agreeing to the introduction of the Bill, so that there is action on this vital subject in weeks, not months—or worse still, years.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. A. J. Beith, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Toby Jessel, Mr. Roger Moate, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Mr. Barry Sheerman and Mr. Gordon Wilson.