§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)I beg to move, That the continuance in force of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 1203) be approved.
The purpose of this evening's debate is to enable the House to consider whether it wishes to continue the decision taken by Parliament in 1981 that drivers and front seat passengers in cars and light vans should be required by law to wear their seat belts.
The House will recall that the decision to make belt wearing compulsory was taken only after years of argument—
§ Dame Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot hear a word that my hon. Friend is saying.
§ Mr. SpeakerNor can I. I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly.
§ Mr. MitchellThe purpose of this evening's debate is to enable the House to consider whether it wishes to continue the decision taken by Parliament in 1981 that drivers and front seat passengers in cars and light vans should be required by law to wear their seat belts.
The background, as the House will recall, is that the decision to make belt wearing compulsory was taken only after years of argument, both inside and outside Parliament, over the case for such a measure. As the controversy had raged so fiercely and had continued for so long, Parliament took the view that there should be one further opportunity to consider the entire issue again after an initial period and decide in the light of experience whether compulsory seat belt wearing should continue indefinitely. Hence the provision in the Transport Act 1981 that the regulations, under which compulsion took effect, would lapse automatically after three years unless this House and another place resolve that they remain in force. The three years expire at the end of this month and the time has therefore now come to take a decision. Just in case there is any misunderstanding, let me make it quite clear that the issue is simply whether to make the regulations permanent or allow them to lapse; there is no provision for modifying the regulations or renewing them only for a further limited period. I remind the House also that the law on the restraining of children in cars is not subject to the review procedure. It is not covered by tonight's debate and will continue in any event.
Although we are returning to an issue which has been discussed many times before in this House, there is, of course, one important difference between tonight's proceedings and all the earlier debates. On those occasions we could look at the issue only in terms of what people thought would or would not happen in the event of seat belt wearing becoming law. Tonight we can consider what actually has happened. Instead of merely speculating, we have moved into the business of observing and recording. Rather than relying on endless hypotheses, we have real facts to work on.
To ensure that all the relevant information is available to Parliament, the Government have conducted, as we promised, a comprehensive monitoring programme, 876 designed to study the practical effects of the belt legislation from every possible angle. The results are set out in our report published last October, which I trust all hon. Members will have studied. The report provides a full statistical analysis—carried out by departmental statisticians and the Transport and Road Research Laboratory—of seat belt wearing rates and the effect of seat belt wearing on casualty trends. It also includes detailed studies by hospitals and universities on the consequences of seat belt wearing in terms of the nature and severity of road accident injuries.
As seat belt compulsion continues to arouse strong feelings in many quarters, with particular attention focusing on the interpretation of all the statistical evidence, the Government thought it right that, in addition to our own monitoring exercise, there should be an entirely independent analysis of all the statistics carried out by expert assessors from outside the Government. We are most grateful to Professors Durbin and Harvey of the London School of Economics for undertaking this task. Their report was published as a clearly separated annex to the Department's own report.
What does the evidence tell us? First, it tells us that there has been instant and wholehearted acceptance of the seat belt law on the part of motorists. Up to the end of 1982 the proportion of drivers and front-seat passengers wearing belts never exceeded 40 per cent. Immediately the law came in, the wearing rate rose to around 95 per cent. and has remained consistently at that level, with no sign whatever of any fall off. This is a remarkable achievement, especially when we consider that in no other country with a seat belt law has the overall wearing rate even begun to approach the sort of level that we have here. Our own observations have been confirmed by the police, who report that the law has been almost entirely self-enforcing.
Why should the public adapt so readily to the seat belt law, when their previous attitude was no more than halfhearted? The most likely answer must surely be that the seat belt law came just at the right time to catch the tide of public opinion. The majority of people had, I believe, all but decided for themselves that wearing a seat belt was a sensible thing to do to reduce the risk of death or injury in the event of an accident. All the legislation did was clinch that decision for them. The law was accepted because it equated with what people judged to be in their own interests.
The next question must be whether people's faith in seat belt wearing has been justified in the light of experience. I will say straight out that in our view, the answer has to be an unequivocal yes. This is the opinion, not just of the Department of Transport, but of all those who have been directly involved in research on seat belt wearing. It is a view shared by virtually the entire medical profession, the police and all those working in road safety.
The evidence to support this conclusion is set out for all to see in the Department's report, backed up by the independent assessment of Professors Durbin and Harvey. The most striking facts are surely these: since the seat belt law took effect, there has been a substantial net reduction in road casualties—at the very minimum, an annual saving of 200 deaths and a further saving of 7,000 serious injuries. On a large sample of some 14 hospitals which are generally recognised as representative by the medical 877 profession, there has been a reduction of no less than 25 per cent. in the admission of car accident victims to wards, with a comparable fall in bed occupancy.
The 200 deaths and 7,000 serious injuries prevented are net figures which take account of changes in the number of rear seat passengers and pedestrians involved in accidents. No one making a proper study of the evidence could seriously argue that trends as clear as these are merely a coincidence. They can only be a direct result of the massive increase in the use of seat belts.
Some people, I know, are worried that there is a debit as well as a credit to seat belt wearing. The notion that seat belts encourage drivers to take risks they would not otherwise take has had a lot of attention from the media and from groups concerned with the safety of vulnerable road users, but, despite exhaustive analysis inside and outside the Government, there is no material evidence to support this allegation. The theory has been studied in this country—it has been studied throughout the world—but nowhere has it been in any way substantiated by the facts.
In any case, let me make it quite clear that the annual saving of 200 deaths and 7,000 injuries to which I referred earlier are net figures, arrived at after allowing for every possible relevant factor, including increases in casualties among certain road users. Seat belt wearing has to be seen as an outstanding success in terms of reducing casualties. Experience since the law took effect has confirmed the results of the earlier research conducted here and abroad. Wearing a seat belt substantially reduces the chances of death or serious injury in the event of an accident.
§ Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)Will the Minister give way?
§ Mr. MitchellI was hoping to speak briefly, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. If there are questions to which I must reply, I shall ask leave of the House to do so.
With the case for seat belt wearing demonstrated so emphatically, the Government's view is that the right course must be to establish the law permanently. Given the evidence that we have, to abandon compulsion at this stage would make no sense from any angle.
There is still, of course, the argument that, however strong the case for wearing a seat belt may be, the decision should remain a matter of individual choice, rather than be enforced by law. I do not lightly dismiss that point of view. This Government are, after all, fully committed to minimising the regulation of people's lives, but I hope that even those for whom this argument had force earlier will be ready to reconsider their view in the light of experience over the past three years. I originally had considerable doubts about the principle of compulsion, but, in the light of the evidence that I have studied, I am persuaded that the law should be allowed to stand.
The House needs no reminder from me of the possible consequences of road accidents for the victim, his family, his friends and colleagues and the community at large. Experience over the past three years has shown that one way of minimising the risk is by the simple act of putting on a seat belt. Ninety five per cent. of drivers and front seat passengers are taking advantage of that facility. I hope that their decision to do so will be endorsed by the House on our first sitting day in European Road Safety Year.
§ 11 pm
§ Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)I congratulate the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) on her new appointment. We shall miss her and we wish her well and thank her for all that she has done for road safety during a long and successful stay at the Department of Transport.
I have supported the compulsory wearing of seat belts on every occasion that the issue has been debated since I was elected in 1974 and nothing that has happened since the Act was introduced three years ago makes me want to change my mind. Indeed, I should welcome an extension of the provision to cover coach drivers and those occupying the front seats of coaches and many commercial vehicles. One of the last acts of the hon. Member for Wallasey at the Department of Transport was to make compulsory the fitting of rear seat belts to new cars, though the compulsory wearing of them is not to be introduced at this stage.
I am worried about some of the statistics provided by cyclists' and pedestrians' associations and by the Friends of the Earth. They show an increase in the number of casualties, though, as the Under-Secretary said, the overall figure is still highly satisfactory.
I an not convinced that the increased number of injuries to cyclists has anything to do with the wearing of seat belts. It is suggested that people are driving with less care and that cyclists and pedestrians are at greater risk. I suspect that the fact that more people are riding bikes means that cyclists are at greater risk anong our increasing traffic problems. We should make better provision for cyclists, rather than change the seat belt law. The increased number of accidents involving pedestrians is worrying and needs to be investigated.
As we said in a recent debate on road safety, too many drivers are going too fast, not only on motorways but on A roads, and often in appalling weather. I do not know why that should be so, but it is a fact and the only way to deal with it is to provide greater police surveillance to catch those who break the law on too many occasions.
Medical opinion, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the AA and the RAC urge us to make the seat belt law permanent. I am certain that they are right and I shall vote accordingly, as will most of my colleagues.
§ 11.4 pm
§ Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)I join the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker)—I hope that she will shortly be my right hon. Friend—on her preferment.
It is a great pity that the question whether we should continue to be forced to wear seat belts or become criminals, which is an issue affecting more than 20 million people in Britain—and on which many hon. Members were persuaded to vote originally on the basis that it would be only an experiment and that ample opportunity would be given to us to discuss the issues—should be dealt with in a derisory one and a half hour debate at the end of a busy day.
Furthermore, there was no point in assuring us that we would be given an opportunity to express our view to the Government when no opportunity to amend the motion has been given to us. The motion was tabled so late that we had no opportunity even to table a token amendment. One is always particularly angry when one's own side does not quite play the game.
879 When listening to my hon. Friend the Minister, one would have thought that the matter was beyond argument. It would have been reassuring if the three-year experiment in seat belt compulsion had proved to have saved lives and serious injuries overall, but, alas, it has done no such thing. Even those of us most concerned about the loss of personal freedom involved in the nanny state forcing us to belt up might be obliged to concede that a saving of 200 or more lives and 7,000 serious injuries per year would be a reasonable enough return for the irritation, incovenience, and even the 7,000 prosecutions a year that the experimental law has produced.
Unfortunately, the claim being made by the Department of Transport has not been proved by the evidence. Yes, of course drivers and front seat passengers no longer go through windscreens with the same frequency—18 per cent. fewer of the former and 25 per cent. fewer of the latter have died from such injuries. Of course, injuries to neck, chest and legs may well be less serious. However, there has been an alarming increase in back seat passenger deaths of 27 per cent., of pedestrian deaths of at least 14 per cent. and of cyclists' deaths of more than 40 per cent. It would be naive to think that there was no connection between that and compulsory seat belts.
If there has been no increase in the number of car crashes since compulsion, how is it that so many more poeple are dying in the back seats of cars? The Department cannot explain that. If there is 3 per cent. less cycling traffic yet an increase of 13 per cent. in fatalities among cyclists over 19 years of age and of 55 per cent. among those over 69 years, it can hardly be BMX bikes causing all the trouble, as some embarrassed defenders of compulsion have claimed. The Department's experts explain those figures as a mystery or a coincidence.
Even if the 200-plus deaths and 7,000 serious injury figures were beyond doubt, if all that has happened is that instead of drivers and front seat passengers being killed, more back seat passengers, pedestrians and cyclists are being killed, the case for seat belt compulsion begins to look less than convincing.
§ Mr. LawrenceThis is a short debate, and I have already complained about the shortness of time. Therefore, I cannot give way.
The evidence is that the BMA, ROSPA and other reputable bodies, in their quite understandable desire to find a simple solution to the carnage on our streets, may be overreaching themselves in their enthusiasm to place reliance upon those figures.
To begin with, the contradiction between the total fatality statistics and the serious injury statistics has led the Government-appointed, totally independent analysts, Professors Durbin and Harvey, to say:
we are unable to provide a completely satisfactory explanation of the differences between the figures for KSI"—that is killed and seriously injured—and killed for rear seat passengers, pedestrians and cyclists.They have chosen to depend rather more for their conclusions on the serious injury figures. Yet the BMA's own evidence to the Select Committee on Transport was that the definition of serious injury extended from a broken finger to total paralysis resulting in death after 30 days, that 70 per cent. of injuries to cyclists were not reported, that only one in four casualties classified as seriously injured are in fact seriously injured and that, therefore: 880the existing definitions upon which records are based are misleading.Bearing in mind that we were originally promised a saving of 1,000 lives a year, can that be a sound basis for relying on the statistics to prove conclusively that compulsion saves lives and serious injuries?As The Lancet said on 11 January,
There will be regret that the evidence on deaths is not more one-sides and disappointment that the measure has fallen short of its promise.There is also the evidence from other countries. If seat belt compulsion had been saving lives, it would have shown up in the statistics of other countries that turned to compulsion years before we did in the United Kingdom. But just the opposite has been revealed. A study of 18 countries has shown that the reduction in deaths and serious injuries in countries without compulsion was greater than in countries where seat belt wearing had been made obligatory and where the law was enforced. The Department of Transport commissioned an internal report to test the validity of that study. That report has never been published. The Department's yellow book, which has been provided in the Vote Office as a document for use in the debate, makes—rather strangely—no reference to the experience of other countries. All of us in the House know that, whenever Governments can rely on the experience of other countries, they do so. Why was there no such reference? The answer may have been discovered by the New Scientist columnist, Mick Hamer, on 7 February last year. I shall read some extracts from his article:Evidence that the compulsory wearing of seat belts may not have saved lives has been hushed up by Britain's Department of Transport … An internal DoT report, which is still confidential, says that the introduction of a law making the wearing of seat belts compulsory in other European countries 'has not led to a detectable change in road-death rates' Indeed, the report says that legislation might actually increase injuries.
§ Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)What report?
§ Mr. LawrenceThe article goes on to say:
Using a simple statistical model, the DoT estimates that the introduction of a seat-belt law 'was followed by an increase in injury rates'. The report says that 'in practical terms this probably means that the law will have no effect'. However, the report says bluntly that 'the results are not compatible with the department's "1,000 plus 10,000" estimates for front-seat vehicle occupants'.
§ Mr. SheermanWhat report?
§ Mr. LawrenceThis is a report that the Department has, which has not been released, and which fell into the hands, by routes that the hon. Gentleman will know only too well, of the New Scientist columnist. As the hon. Gentleman has not read the report, perhaps he will care to listen to more extracts from the article:
The confidential report estimates that there will be an increase of 2.3 per cent. in deaths among car users, although this is not statistically significant. It also estimates that the number of deaths among other road users could climb by 150 a year. The report, however, questions whether this result is statistically reliable … Again, the DoT found that making drivers belt up had no significant effect on injuries among car users. However, it did find a significant increase in injuries among other road users: 'The predominance of positive effects (increased numbers of injuries) is alarming.'The report estimates that the number of injuries to pedestrians will rise by 11 per cent., and the number of injuries to other road users will also rise, by around 12 per cent. to 13 per cent. …Eight European countries introduced laws making drivers belt up, from Finland in 1973, to Denmark and West Germany in 1976. The DoT estimates that the effect of introducing the law was to increase road accidents in every country.881 Where is that report? If the New Scientist has seen a copy of it, can we not also see it? If compulsion has failed to reduce casualties anywhere else in the world, can the figures relied on for Britain be all that reliable?Perhaps the most obviously unacceptable feature of the Department of Transport's claim is that the reduction in overall fatalities of at least 200 and of 7,000 serious injuries per year since 1983 following seat belt compulsion is due entirely to seat belt compulsion. What an extraordinary claim. Has no life been saved as a result of all the new safety devices in new cars, and has the number of injuries not been reduced? For all the road improvements, has there been no benefit in a reduction in the number of deaths or injuries? For the increase in police control cars, and the improvement in motor cycle testing regulations, has there been no benefit? Most surprising of all, despite the almost simultaneous campaign in 1983 against drunk driving, reinforced by the new evidential breath test machine, which has resulted in 38,000 more breath tests, 23,000 more prosecutions, not one saving of life or of serious injury has been claimed—nothing, nil, zero, nix, zilch. That is despite the fact that elsewhere the Department has claimed a 23 per cent. reduction in deaths during the drink-driving hours of 10 pm to 4 am against a reduction of only 3 per cent. in driver deaths outside those hours.
If the claims for the success of the anti-drink-driving regulations have been understated, or not stated at all, it follows that the success of the compulsory seat belt law has been overstated, and we are entitled to ask by how much it has been overstated. Is it utterly impossible that all of the 200 lives may have been saved by the drink-driving regulations alone?
Those hon. Members, whether for libertarian reasons or because we are suspicious about swallowing without challenge every unsubstantiated claim that is made by our masters in Whitehall and are not inclined to accept the exaggerated claims made for seat belt compulsion, owe a huge debt of gratitude to one man, Dr. John Adams of University College, London. He has patiently and relentlessly researched the subject and has done the work upon which I have been able to base this speech. In answer to the question: why do seat belts not save lives and injuries? he would, I think, reply that just as wearing a safety harness makes the rock climber more adventurous, so the safety of a seat belt may well make the driver marginally more reckless. It is accepted that improved car brakes do not necessarily achieve more than to make the driver brake later and at a faster speed. If that consumption of performance benefit applies psychologically to braking, why should it not also apply to seat belts?
Dr. Adams concludes a recent article that he wrote with these words:
If one trusts the accurate numbers (fatalities) rather than the large numbers (injuries), if one allows the reduction in drunken driving a reasonable share of the credit for the decrease in fatalities in 1983, and if one considers the evidence relating to other countries, the balance of the Department of Transport's own evidence tilts strongly in favour of the conclusion that there has been no net life-saving benefit attributable to the seat belt law, only a shift in the burden of risk from the best protected to the most vulnerable road users.Those are the real facts and those are the real conclusions.It may be that enough has been done to show that the three year experiment, having failed to produce any more 882 convincing evidence than the foreign experience has produced for the saving of life and serious injuries, means that we should be allowed to return to the voluntary wearing of seat belts, subject to the constraints to wear them that were imposed upon us by the insurance companies and the courts. However, such a reversion may be unrealistic in the present climate of opinion, and I do not ask for that. But are we not entitled to ask the Government to extend the experiment for a further period of time so that they may have the opportunity to produce more convincing statistics than have so far been produced?
I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to withdraw the motion and to submit another in due course to extend the experiment for a further three-year period. That would not involve the dropping of compulsory seat belt wearing for the time being. An amendment that I would have tabled, had the Government allowed me an appropriate opportunity to do so, would have asked just that.
§ Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)At a social occasion last summer in my constituency a young man came up to me and said that he had started to wear a seat belt because the law said that he had to do so, but that he had resisted it until then because he believed many of the arguments advanced by some hon. Members. A notable example of those arguments has been reiterated by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). However, this young man said, "Last week I was in a road accident and there is no doubt in my mind that as a consequence of that road accident, had I not been wearing a seat belt, I should be dead or so severely injured that I would not be out and about tonight. So I suppose I have to thank you, and the likes of you, by persuading me, through the law, to wear a seat belt, for the very fact that I am here and able to speak to you this evening." That spoke more eloquently to me than anything else that I have heard, certainly this evening, about what the general public believe has been the advantage of the law that Parliament passed three years ago.
Reference has already been made to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and I, too would congratulate her this evening on her apparent elevation to the Foreign Office, even if the consequence of that will be that she will suffer the attacks, not of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), but of myself in another incarnation. We believe that it is being seen as promotion, and we wish her well because she has supervised this issue with great assiduousness.
I have a slight interest to declare in this debate. As chairman of the seat belt survivors club, I have been in contact with a large number of people who have had their lives saved and who have been saved from serious injury because over the years they have worn a seat belt in accidents that would otherwise have rendered them dead or infirm.
I admit that over the years I have become a zealot on this issue. I wore my seat belt for many years because I thought that it made common sense. Nine years ago this Sunday I was involved in a head-on collision with a Land Rover, and only as a consequence of wearing a seat belt was I saved from almost certain death. That certainly concentrated the mind and gave me an enthusiasm for the issue.
883 I have always believed, and I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House who have supported the measure have believed, that this was a matter of common sense. We are reassured by the fact that over the three years since the law came in, what was a matter of great controversy, of almost endless debate in the House and repeated votes, with large majorities in favour, is now a matter of no controversy at all. The vast majority of motorists put on their seat belts now with no more thought than they give to making sure that the doors of the car are firmly closed behind them.
Ninety four per cent. of motorists are now using seat belts. The statistics that the Minister gave are eloquent testimony to the success of the measure. The Minister is a brave man this evening to come to the Dispatch Box and admit that he was one who was not convinced but has now had conviction forced upon him. He is not alone in that. One of the most vivid speeches in all the debates on the subject that I can remember was that by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who gave his personal testimony to his scepticism on the issue and the conviction that was imposed upon him by his experience as a Minister at the Department of Transport and the vivid recollections that he had of the casualty wards in hospitals and the sight of the road accident victims within them.
This is without doubt the single most successful road safety measure that Britain has ever seen. It costs nothing in civil liberty and financial terms, and it has saved so much. It has saved the suffering and the pain that goes with the road casualty figures every day of this life. It has saved our nation at least £130 million. More than that, it has saved countless numbers of maimings, blindings and cripplings, which are the real human manifestation of the road accident statistics that are represented in the savings that have been put forward over the past three years.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton made virtually the same speech tonight as we heard three years ago and in practically every other debate beforehand. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) says that the hon. and learned Member did not vote.
Some have chosen to support Dr. John Adams's theory of risk compensation, and this is an attractive and eloquent theory, put forward by somebody whose mastery of the statistics gives him a bogus authority. Is his theory worth anything? If it works in this case, why does it not work in every other case where preventative measures have been taken in road safety? Are we to abandon all sfety measures for people on the roads and in their cars simply because a questionable, flimsy, tendentious theory suggests that those who are belted have more confidence and start knocking down pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists? I am sure that the vast majority of the population would reject that theory, and they have shown that they have done so by the act that they continue to wear their seat belts.
Some have said that the numbers saved from death and serious injury are smaller than was suggested by the proponents of the measure when this issue was last debated in Parliament. That is so, but the estimates were never likely to be precise, any more than the statistics used this evening are precise. We know that if the usage rate were to go from 94 to 100 per cent., the chances are that the targets established on the guesses and best estimates would be met.
At least 200 more people a year are alive who would otherwise be dead, and at least 7,000 who would otherwise 884 be seriously injured are able to get around. We are told that there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in admissions to hospitals of front seat road accident victims, and a 30 per cent. reduction in hospital inpatients from road accidents. There has been a 40 per cent. reduction in major and minor brain injuries among those injured in car accidents. Are these not testimony enough to the valuable and life-preserving measure?
Three years ago, thanks to the skill and opportunity of Lord Nugent, a former Conservative Transport Minister, in the other place, this House had a chance to embrace this life-saving legislation. As it always has done, the House gave the measure its support. The evidence has been clear. People have been saved, and we must therefore consolidate that success.
§ Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley)Some believe that there is no philosophical issue involved in this matter—in other words, if any measure such as this saves lives, it is justified. There are others for whom the matter is equally simple. They argue that it is entirely a matter of individual freedom, and that expediency cannot override principle. Finally there are those—among whom I count myself—who are perhaps the majority in the country, who accept that some element of freedom is compromised, but on the whole, are prepared to put up with such an impairment of their freedom if there is a clear safety benefit.
It goes without saying that if one is involved in an accident when wearing a seat belt, one stands a better chance of avoiding death or serious injury than if one is unbelted. The statistics show clearly that following the introduction of compulsory front seat belt wearing, more drivers and front seat passengers are surviving than before. Those who are blind to argument would say, "End of story", but those who are anxious to get at the truth will look at the position of other road users, because of the possibility that drivers will act differently if they feel more secure.
Those who want to pour scorn on such a hypothesis may do so by appealing to subjective observation. At first sight, that seems reasonable. Most people say that they do not feel that they are taking a greater risk because they are wearing a belt, and nobody has been able to detect whether drivers wearing a seat belt drive faster or more dangerously than they would if they did not. To suggest that such a difference would or could be detected is to distort the theory that driving behaviour is altered by perception of risk.
Unfortunately, fatal accidents happen every day, but every day many millions of miles are covered by motorists, and a fatality occurs once in every 1,000 million miles driven. The difference in behaviour only needs to be infinitesimal and, certainly, immeasurable to have an effect on the casualty rates.
More people may see the point of the argument, if we reverse the process. Take away a seat belt from a rally driver, and who would deny that he would drive more cautiously? If he crashes the result may be more calamitous, but is it not more likely that he will take great care to ensure that he does not crash, and will he not take a fraction of a second more when he encounters a bend, and brake a fraction of a second early to increase his chances of reaching his destination? Enough of theory. Let us see what has happened in practice.
885 Professors Durbin and Harvey, who were commissioned by the Department of Transport to carry out an analysis of the statistics, rely mainly on the figures for those killed and seriously injured, rather than on fatalities alone. Where the change in fatalities appears to support the risk-compensation hypothesis they fall back on the number of those killed and seriously injured. However, those figures are open to misunderstanding and misreporting.
A serious injury may require the casualty to remain in hospital for only one night. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory says that 59 per cent. of serious injuries to cyclists are never reported to the police, and the British Medical Association claims that the figure is even higher. Therefore, the figures of those seriously injured are open to extreme doubt.
What do Durbin and Harvey say when they find fatalities that are inconsistent with the view that seat belts bring about a safer environment? On page 51 of the Department's report, they state
The fact remains that we find the large proportionate increase in rear seat passengers killed hard to understand … We are reluctant to accept changes in driving behaviour as an explanation since these would be expected to lead to a corresponding increase in numbers seriously injured and there is no evidence of such an increase. We must therefore leave the sharp rise in the number of rear seat passengers killed as an unexplained mystery, at least until more evidence is available.Had the House had an opportunity to extend the experimental period, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) suggested, more such evidence could have become available. Regrettably, the House has not been granted that option.In the two years following the introduction of compulsion, the increase in deaths among rear seat passengers was 18 per cent. Durbin and Harvey were also at a loss to explain increases in casualties among cyclists and pedestrians. When we examine the figures more carefully, we find that the increases did not occur for cyclists and pedestrians killed because they came into contact with heavy goods vehicles, but, because they were hit by cars and light vans, most of whose drivers were wearing seat belts. On page 31 of their report, Durbin and Harvey accepted that the evidence was unmistakable. They said
There remains strong evidence of a substantial increase in numbers of cyclists killed in accidents with cars.As they pointed to an increase of about 40 per cent., that conclusion was unavoidable.Even for those who accept all the arguments favouring compulsion, the fatality statistics for motorists must be a serious disappointment. In 1977 the then Labour Minister, Mr. William Rodgers, forecast that 1,000 lives a year would be saved. By 1982 the Department of Transport suggested a figure of 700 or fewer, and on this morning's radio a spokesman for the BMA was talking about 200. The Lancet admitted
There will be regret that the evidence on deaths is not more one-sided and disappointment that the measure has fallen short of its promise.The fact that the Department's chosen statisticians, Durbin and Harvey, neglected to take into account was the concerted effort against drink-driving which also began in the first part of the same year, 1983, with the introduction of the evidential breath testing machine and the jump in prosecutions. There was a significant drop in the number of drivers killed who were found to be over the limit and 886 160—curiously close to 200—fewer drunken drivers died in 1983 than in 1982. Most significant of all, the number killed between 10 pm and 4 am, often described as the drink-drive hours, fell by 23 per cent. compared with a drop of only 3 per cent. at all other times of day. The Department's statisticians attributed all the savings to seat belts but the evidence points in a very different direction.The Lancet said, referring to Dr. Adams, that it was
unhelpful of the Department of Transport to have suppressed an evaluation supporting his doubts.More charitably, I would say that the 1981 evaluation of the experience of compulsion in other countries was not intended for publication. Nevertheless, it accepted Adam's finding of an increase in pedestrian injuries in every one of the eight countries which had introduced compulsion and described the statistical odds against achieving eight such positive results as one in 256. It also warned that the predominance of increased casualty rates for pedestrians was "alarming" and noted thatsince pedestrians account for 20 per cent. of casualties in Britain and the law effect seems positive for themin other words, casualties increased—closer scrutiny is called for.That seems to be a serious understatement.Given that the evidence points to a seriously increased risk for non-motorists, it is not surprising that alarm has been expressed by representatives of pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. Motorcycle organisations noted that despite new safety legislation passed by the House and despite a proven reduction in drinking and riding, casualties among motorcyclists did not fall. The representative of the Pedestrians' Association on the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety drew attention to the fact that the organisation had ignored some of Durbin and Harvey's findings and the representatives of the Cyclists Touring Club and Friends of the Earth, who had originally favoured compulsion, also changed their minds when they saw the effects.
§ Mr. SheermanDoes the hon. Gentleman admit that those three organisations did not change their stance to one of anti-compulsion but merely said that they would be neutral and that they are only three out of 48 members of PACTS?
§ Mr. WallerThe three representatives to whom I have referred are now decidely against compulsion, having previously supported it.
One major motoring organisation quotes as fact figures for casualty savings which the most ardent pro-compulsion lobbyists would not dare to claim as proven. Another claims that at least the net effect is probably positive. In effect, an increase in casualties among pedestrians and two-wheelers is regarded as acceptable if there is a sufficient reduction in driver and passenger casualties. I hope that Ministers disagree with that attitude, but if some of the evidence produced by the Department itself is to be accepted the conclusion that in endorsing the regulations we accept a transfer of the burden of risk from the best protected to the most vulnerable is inescapable. If one examines the department's own evidence fairly it points, regrettably, in that direction.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, whom I, too, congratulate on her new appointment, said in defence of compulsion—and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) made the 887 same point—that she had received a number of letters of thanks from motorists saved by seat belts. The graves of those who died because some drivers took greater risks bear no distinguishing signs and my hon Friend the Minister will not be receiving any letters from them. Nevertheless, if one takes the fatality statistics as the only ones with which one cannot argue, if one considers the effects of drink-drive legislation which were ignored by the statisticians, and if one considers the international evidence, and if one asks why more pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists have died than one would have expected, only one conclusion is possible—that we should not approve the regulations today.
§ Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan)It would be impertinent if the Front-Bench speakers took more than the minimum time in this debate, because this is a House of Commons matter. Each hon. Member must make up his or her mind whether to agree with the proposition. I do not intend to spend a great deal of time advocating my support for the points made by the Under-Secretary of State. That is not to say that I do not believe implicitly or fervently in what he said, but I believe that I should give other hon Members time to deploy their arguments.
I do not know what motivates hon. Members to walk down a particular Damascus road, but I note that the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Transport have decided that the evidence compiled by their Department has convinced them that the way in which they voted the last time this matter was discussed was wrong. I presume that they will reverse that decision and vote in favour of the continuation of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. I do not say that in a malevolent sense; I say it in a spirit of good will to them, because I believe that they have now had an opportunity to look objectively at the overwhelming evidence that has come forward since the experiment.
I appreciate the efforts, work and commitment of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) in all the road safety matters that we have discussed since she has been a member of the Government, especially since she has been concerned with transport. There are not many measures during the six years of the Conservative party's term in office with which I am proud to be associated. There is little legislation that I would commend to anyone. I am, however, proud to be associated with the 1981 transport legislation. The hon. Member for Wallasey deserves credit for ensuring that it reached the statute book. She is right in claiming credit for the lives that have been saved and the accidents and fatal injuries that have been prevented as a result of the wearing of seat belts.
It would be academic of me if I were to rebut the views of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) with a typewritten script from the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety on the virtues of compulsory seat belt wearing. I doubt that I would convince him of its arguments. Many important people concerned with road safety support the council's claims, including the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Automobile Association, the British Medical Association, the Casualty Surgeons Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust, the County Road Safety Officers Association, the County Surveyors Society, the Institute of Road Safety Officers, the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention, the Motor Conference, the Royal Society for 888 the Prevention of Accidents and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. I concede that the Cyclists Association and Friends of the Earth might take a different view and might disagree with the overwhelming evidence on the compulsory wearing of seat belts which the House has received during the past three years. I accept that in a democracy they have an absolute right to do that, in the same way as I accept that Dr. Adams has a right to proffer his analysis. Unfortunately, my record shows that the hon. Member for Keighley did not vote in the last Division on this issue. I refer him to Hansard of 28 July 1981 where I took Dr. Adams to task for his assertions that the compulsory wearing of seat belts would not be beneficial. Dr. Adams tilts at conventional windmills. I do not disregard that. Long may he continue to do so, but I believe that on this occasion, as on the last, his evidence is seriously flawed. He has not satisfied me—
§ Mr. LawrenceThe hon. Gentleman is an ordinary Member of the House.
§ Mr. StottHe must satisfy me as an hon. Member. The fact that I am propped up against the Dispatch Box gives me no more rights than the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). Dr. Adams has failed to convince me that what he is saying is correct. I do not believe that it is.
There is abundant evidence to support our case. The compulsory wearing of seat belts has saved lives and has prevented injuries to and the disfigurement of many car drivers. If the House of Commons is about doing anything it is about doing that. I rest on what I said a little earlier: this is one piece of legislation with which I have been proud to be associated during the past six years. I shall vote for its renewal this evening.
§ Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)Like the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) I feel a sense of pride at having taken some small part in the legislation which we enacted some years ago. It was not achieved without a great deal of battling over many years. That is why many of us feel a great deal of pleasure at, in the words of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when he introduced the measure, the public's wholehearted and instant acceptance of the measure. In that we do not include my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), but that would have been rather too much to hope for.
One of the most striking things has been, despite all the prognostications of the opponents, that the public have accepted the measure as a commonsense one that contributes greatly to road safety. That is in stark contrast to their forecasts at the time.
It has been suggested that my hon. and learned Friend made the same speech that he made several years ago. That was not a fair accusation because he has completely shifted the grounds of his argument. It is significant to recall the forecasts made by the opponents of the measure. First, they forecast that it would be unenforceable by the police. That was a common cry. In fact there have been a dramatic increase to about 95 per cent. in the public wearing of seat belts. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend is big enough to admit that there have been no problems over enforceability. We were told that there would be massive resentment by the public against this measure which would cause animosity towards the police. That, again, has not happened.
889 My hon. and learned Friend significantly admitted that fewer people might be hurled through windscreens and that there would be fewer front seat deaths. The measures opponents were denying that some years ago. That was the point of their argument. They said that that would not happen. I am sure we can at least agree that there has been a significant reduction in front-seat passenger deaths. That is important proof of the sense of the legislation.
I find extraordinary the ground onto which the opponents have moved. In effect they are saying that this safety device is so effective that it makes people complacent and that therefore other deaths result. That is a strange argument and I hope that we do not try to apply it too often in the sphere of safety. If one carried the argument to absurd lengths, one might do away with brakes, because brakes make drivers more careless. If they had no brakes they would drive so much more carefully and fewer injuries would be inflicted on pedestrians and cyclists. We might do away with fire extinguishers because they make people careless about fires. My hon. and learned Friend is admitting that this safety device works so well and drivers are so confident of it that it increases their carelessness.
My hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) started by admitting that there had been an inexplicable increase in rear-seat accidents, and deaths of and injuries to pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists, and cited that as evidence that the wearing of seat belts causes injury to others. That is absolute nonsense. The facts remain as shown by a range of inquiries, including an independent assessment that at least 200 lives a year have been saved. My hon. Friend and others say, "We heard a figure of 1,000 a year". That is true, but my hon. and learned Friend will remember that, in those debates, many of us said that even if only 100 lives a year were saved, it must be worth doing.
My hon. and learned Friend's arguments about civil liberties, which sound strange when applied to the rules of the road and are quite inapplicable in that area, subside into nothing when compared with a saving of life on the scale about which we are talking.
§ Mr. LawrenceWhat assessment does my hon. Friend give to the success or otherwise of the drink-driving regulations?
§ Mr. MoateMy hon. and learned Friend must remember that we are talking about net figures, and about increases in some other figures that could equally be attributable in that way. The figures have been carefully analysed by independent assessors. My hon. and learned Friend will not accept them in a month of Sundays, but other independent assessors and a mass of evidence say that we have at least achieved that worthwhile and significant reduction in casualties on the road. After all these years, I should have thought that my hon. and learned Friend would start to see the sense of the argument. Even if he remains an almost lone and obstinate voice on this issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not alone."] I said "almost".
The point is that the majority of the British public accepts this as common sense. If my hon. and learned Friend fears that the legislation causes more injuries to rear-seat passengers, I hope that he will follow the logic 890 of his argument and accept compulsory restraints on rear-seat passengers to help to reduce casualties on the road. But even then, I fear that his phoney arguments about civil liberties in this instance will always be more important to him than reducing the carnage on our roads.
§ Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)One could be forgiven for having a feeling of déjà vu this evening. Three and a half years ago, we spent a long time in the same company listening to similar speeches, and some of us spent many hours arguing the matter in the Committee that considered the Transport Bill. But, while listening to the speeches of the few remaining opponents to the measure, I was wondering why they feel so strongly after all the evidence that has been presented to us. This is not only the most effective road safety legislation in the history of this place, it is the most closely monitored. No legislation has been under such a microscope. It has been monitored by an independent medical committee, it has been sent by the Department of Transport to two independent statistical assessors at London university, and it has been assessed by every professional organisation involved in road safety.
When I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), I was pointing out that the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—which I have the honour to co-chair—has 48 members, 45 of whom support the continuation and the making permanent of this legislation. Of course, there will always be some disagreement in any argument. I applaud the fact that Dr. Adams, as he did three and a half years ago, sticks to his argument that the risk compensation theory is correct. After three-and-a-half years the evidence is against him. Every other authority, including Dr. Murray MacKay, London university, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Surgeons, and everyone who has monitored the situation agree.
Listening to some of the arguments one would think that statisticians were opposed to the measures, not politicians. We must judge on the best technical and scientific advice available. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) mentioned the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Association which has changed its mind. The evidence is in.
Why do some people still oppose the measure? There is an element of guilt they cannot shove off. I do not wish to be unpleasant, but perhaps those who stopped the legislation from becoming reality for over 10 years have some responsibility for 2,000 people being unnecessarily killed and for 70,000 people being unnecessarily injured. That is a very heavy responsibility and I am not surprised at the guilt felt by the opponents of this measure.
I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley. I have the evidence. The Friends of the Earth are not against the measure but are neutral, as are the pedestrians' organisations. He said that I was misleading the House. I was telling the plain, unvarnished truth.
Several other hon. Members want to speak and I want them to have that opportunity. One of the nice things about the legislation was that it came from the Back Benches. It was not ministerial; it certainly was not Governmental, and it was not initiated by the Labour Front Bench. We stand firm, remembering that day three and a half years ago when a combination of the two leaders of our great parties and their Chief Whips not only put every obstacle 891 possible in our way, but decided that the vote should be on the night before the royal wedding on a one-line Whip after Ten o'clock.
In the last three and a half years we have seen one of the nicest things with which most of us have been associated. So many speeches in the House result in nothing. So many speeches result in legislation which damages our country rather than improving it.
§ Mr. Walter Harrison (Wakefield)I hope that my hon. Friend will identify which way the then deputy Chief Whip voted.
§ Mr. SheermanThere was some enlightenment behind the Chief Whips.
This legislation has delivered life. It has delivered freedom from serious injury for so many people that it would be a disaster if we voted to reverse that process. We can go on to apply science to the problem of road accidents. This is what the measure represents. It represents people looking with intelligence at measures. We are not seeking apple pie solutions, but scientific solutions to a problem. There are many other ways to cut serious injuries and deaths on our roads. Let us build on this success and go forward. This is not the end of the road but the beginning of saving lives and preventing serious injury.
§ 12 midnight
§ Mr. Peter Griffiths (Portsmouth, North)I have in front of me briefs from the British Cycling Federation and the Cyclists Touring Club, both of which state unequivocally that they trust that we shall vote no at the end of the debate. I do not know how that can be held to be a neutral position. The words used are "Vote No", and such wording has never been neutral in my vocabulary.
A motor vehicle can be dangerous, and for that reason we license people to drive on the public highway. If they transgress seriously, we remove their right to drive. Otherwise, we assume that they are responsible citizens carrying out a legal activity for which they pay extremely heavily. It is no part of the duty of the House, or of any Government, to legislate to force people to do that which the House or the Government believe will be good for them and them alone.
The only person who can be helped, assisted or saved by a seat belt is the person who wears it. If we were debating measures controlling the design of motor cars and providing for safety for those with whom the motor car comes in contact—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) would listen instead of making remarks from a sedentary position. I did not interrupt his speech.
If we were producing legislation to provide measures to make the motor car more safe, when driven carefully, for other road users, it would have my fullest support. However, we are being asked permanently to infringe the right of choice of individuals who are responsible. If they are not responsible, they should not be allowed to drive upon the public highway.
It is an essential freedom that we should be allowed to choose to what extent we shall be mollycoddled. The seat belt has many disavantages and it is uncomfortable for many people. Even if belts are well designed, they restrict one's ability to turn round to see what is coming from 892 behind. It is not a universally helpful piece of apparatus. Unless it is clear that it helps others, there is no reason to impose it upon the long-suffering motorist.
§ Mr. Norman Miscampbell (Blackpool, North)Is it not abundantly clear that most accidents are not head-on collisions? The majority involve glancing blows. The person who is retained in the driving position has far more chance of controlling the car and helping the third parties to whom he might run into than has the driver who is not so retained. It is not a matter of helping the driver alone, who is able to control the vehicle because he is in the driving position and has not been projected through the windscreen.
§ Mr. GriffithsIt is not part of my argument to suggest other than that the driver and front-seat passenger benefit from wearing a seat belt if they are in an accident. The motorist has the element of safety that is provided by being inside a steel cage and he may benefit from wearing a belt, but there is some evidence, the statistical reliability of which it is difficult to assess—I speak as someone who taught statistics in the classroom—that there is a likelihood that there are more vulnerable road users who will be disadvantaged if a driver takes greater risks than previously. These road users are pedestrians and cyclists.
If the evidence suggested that other road users benefited from motorists using seat belts the case would be open and shut, but the evidence leaves a great deal of doubt. As there is a division in the House—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) feels strongly on the issue and there are others who feel just as strongly—and an element of doubt, I can think of no reason why we should have to make a permanent decision this evening.
Why can we not have an extension of the trial period, during which we would attempt to keep the other variables as constant as possible? Over the past three years we have had rapidly changing variables, which have been referred to by others, and I shall not rehearse them. Would it not be reasonable to mention, for example, the increase in the use of laminated glass for windscreens as having some effect on the number of drivers and front-seat passengers who are less seriously injured in head-on collisions? Why should we assume that that has had no effect? Better designed steering wheels and cockpits, improvements in brakes, tyre performance and in roads and the building of more motorways are all factors that could be taken into account and could account for some of the reduction in death and injury.
If it is so obvious that seat belt wearing is desirable, why is compulsion necessary? Is it suggested that drivers are so foolish that they will not do what is obviously sensible? Is it not rather the case that about half the motorists thought that seat belts increased their safety and the safety of others, and that about half did not? The half who did not now accept the law because we are basically a law abiding nation and because it is obvious to traffic policemen whether a motorist is wearing a seat belt.
I have no doubt that we could increase safety by insisting that every driver wears a full safety harness. Where do we draw the line? I suggest that we draw the line at letting sensible people who have been given a licence to drive on a public highway decide, so that we retain personal freedom and concentrate the Department's 893 efforts, and perhaps ours, on finding means of avoiding injury to people other than drivers and front seat passengers.
§ 12.7 am
§ Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)I shall not follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) down all of the devious routes of illogicality through which he has just meandered except to say that seat belt wearing has to be compulsory because compulsion made seat belt wearing increase from about 30 per cent. to 94 or 95 per cent. The argument that there should be a test period, during which, presumably, all advances in safety are to be held back while we establish the effectiveness of seat belt wearing, is utterly illogical.
It is interesting that the only arguments that have been advanced against the proposal have been made by the provisional wing of the lunatic fringe of the libertarian lobby. All seek, by querulous, quivering, specious argument to deny the paramount fact that, thanks to the three-year trial period, 1,000 people who would be dead if we had not made seat belt wearing compulsory are alive today. What is more, some 18,000 serious injuries have been avoided during the same period. That is the supreme fact that they are quibbling against. No wonder their argument becomes so specious and illogical.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), I have been a committed supporter of the compulsory wearing of seat belts ever since I was involved in a serious accident in which my life was undoubtedly saved because I was wearing a seat belt. I was a new Member of Parliament and had not realised that I had been elected to the driving seat of a car rather than a seat in the House of Commons. I spent most of my time going up and down the A1. After a few months, I was involved in an accident, but my life was saved because I was wearing a seat belt.
One of the few achievements open to Back Benchers, especially under this Government, is that, with the benign superintendance of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), who has now transmuted to other things, on which we congratulate her once again—it is a chorus tonight—we have eventually succeeded in getting seat belt wearing made compulsory. It was later than it should have been and much later than in other countries, but we did it. It was a major social advance, thanks to which we have a 30 per cent. saving in deaths and injuries to front seat passengers, a 20 per cent. saving in slight injuries to front seat passengers, a 25 per cent. reduction in the number of hospital admissions, a 39 per cent. reduction in brain injuries, a 53 per cent. reduction in facial wounds and a 40 per cent. reduction in lung injuries sustained by front seat occupants. Those are the achievements of the trial period.
§ Mr. BerminghamDoes my hon. Friend agree that, if the motion is passed, we should seek an assurance from the Minister that he will continue to monitor the statistics so that we may see the outcome of the measure? Secondly, perhaps the Minister will look again at the construction of the seat belts used in our motor vehicles.
§ Mr. MitchellI welcome my hon. Friend's suggestions. There is much to be done in those areas and we should encourage that work to be done.
894 We cannot gainsay the huge statistical improvements that have been made, at minimal cost, because, for practical purposes, the legislation has been self-enforcing. To go back on making seat belts permanently compulsory would be to throw several tons of baby out with a small drop of bath water.
Tory Members cannot now revive all the libertarian arguments that a basic element in British freedom was the freedom to go head first through a windscreen and that that was the touchstone of British liberty. Therefore, they are driven on to the arguments of Dr. John Adams, of the department of geography at University college, London.
The logical conclusion of Dr. Adams's argument is that if being safe encourages people to take more risks—and that has not been proved; there is no evidence that people drive faster when wearing seat belts—drivers should be made unsafe, more exposed and less comfortable. They should not have brakes, and all the improvements in interior comforts and safety should be abandoned. The logical conclusion of Dr. Adams's work is that all car drivers should be riding bicycles, so that they are exposed to the environment around them and the safety factor will be strengthened.
The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety has put those arguments in their true light. It is claimed that, internationally, there has been no improvement, but that claim is based on a starting year of 1973 and several countries introduced compulsory seat belt wearing in that year and some did so before that. The true starting year is 1970. Road accidents date for 21 developed countries over a 10-year period show that countries without seat belt laws suffered an average 6.6 per cent. growth in road accident deaths, while countries with a seat belt law enjoyed an average 17.8 per cent. reduction in fatalities. That is the statistical change resulting from a true measure as opposed to that taken by Dr. Adams in a manipulation of the figures.
The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety goes through Dr. Adams's other arguments to show how illogical they are. For instance, there is no statistically significant rise in the number of pedestrians, pedal cyclists and rear seat passengers who are seriously injured. There has been an increase in the number of fatally injured pedestrians and pedal cyclists, but the numbers are too small to be statistically significant.
We are driven to the conclusion that Dr. Adams's arguments are specious and would not justify the gain that has been made in the saving of lives and the avoidance of injury to drivers and front seat passengers.
It is disgraceful that the Friends of the Earth are sitting on the fence and that organisations such as the Cyclists Touring Club, the British Cycling Federation and others should oppose the extension of the legislation. This is not an argument between cyclists and drivers. It is an argument about how we save lives, and the legislation has demonstrably done that.
I welcome the proposal to make seat belt wearing permanently compulsory. I hope that within not too long a time we move from there to make compulsory the wearing of seat belts in rear seats.
§ Mr. David MitchellMany hon. Members have paid tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the former Minister of State in this area, and wished her well in her new responsibilities. I join with them in that.
895 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) supported the measure, but called for more investigation into the increase in the number of accidents involving cyclists. I agree with him, and will see what we can do to further the discovery of the causes of such accidents.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) admitted that there had been an improvement in the figures for injuries to those sitting in front seats—a point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), but he and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) thought that more back-seat passengers had been injured, and more pedestrians and cyclists killed and injured. They suggested that the reason for that might lie in the campaign against drinking and driving.
We do not know for certain the reason for the increase in injuries to back-seat passengers, but the most likely reason is that more people have been using back seats because they have not wanted to sit in the front and wear seat belts. There may have been a rise in the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed, but the figures of 200 lives saved is a minimum net figure. It is based on the most pessimistic assumption and allows for the possibility that the increase in the number of injuries to rear-seat passengers, cyclists and pedestrians has been due to the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Without allowing for that possibility, the annual saving of lives would be between 450 and 500. The net figure is a substantial 200 lives saved.
On the campaign against drinking and driving, the reduction in the number of deaths began in February 1983 when the seat belt law was introduced, not in May 1983 when evidential breath testing machines were introduced. Therefore, there is not the correlation that my hon. and learned Friend suggested.
Hon. Members have suggested that I have changed my view. Quite frankly, that is true. In the light of the evidence, I am wiser now than when I took another view. I would have preferred not to have found it necessary to apply compulsion, but I am persuaded by the evidence that it is a major advantage.
§ It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
§ The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 25.
897| Division No. 34] | [12.15 am |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) |
| Ancram, Michael | Campbell-Savours, Dale |
| Ashby, David | Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | Cash, William |
| Baldry, Tony | Chalker, Mrs Lynda |
| Barron, Kevin | Channon, Rt Hon Paul |
| Beith, A. J. | Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) |
| Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) | Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Clarke, Thomas |
| Blackburn, Dr. John G. | Clay, Robert |
| Bottomley, Peter | Clelland, David Gordon |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Clwyd, Mrs Ann |
| Boyes, Roland | Cohen, Harry |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Conlan, Bernard |
| Bright, Graham | Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) |
| Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) | Coombs, Simon |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. | Cope, John |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Couchman, James |
| Burt, Alistair | Cox, Thomas (Tooting) |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Maclean, David John |
| Dalyell, Tam | McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) |
| Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) | McNamara, Kevin |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) | McTaggart, Robert |
| Dewar, Donald | McWilliam, John |
| Dixon, Donald | Madden, Max |
| Dobson, Frank | Malone, Gerald |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Martin, Michael |
| Dubs, Alfred | Mather, Carol |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Durant, Tony | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Dykes, Hugh | Maxton, John |
| Eastham, Ken | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Merchant, Piers |
| Ewing, Harry | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Faulds, Andrew | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) | Mills, Iain (Meriden) |
| Flannery, Martin | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) |
| Forth, Eric | Mitchell, David (Hants NW) |
| Foster, Derek | Moate, Roger |
| Foulkes, George | Moynihan, Hon C. |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Mudd, David |
| Galley, Roy | Neale, Gerrard |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Newton, Tony |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Nicholls, Patrick |
| George, Bruce | Norris, Steven |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | O'Neill, Martin |
| Godman, Dr Norman | Page, Sir John (Harrow W) |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Park, George |
| Gregory, Conal | Patchett, Terry |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John S | Patten, Christopher (Bath) |
| Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn) |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Pawsey, James |
| Hancock, Mr. Michael | Pike, Peter |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Pollock, Alexander |
| Hannam, John | Powley, John |
| Harris, David | Prentice, Rt Hon Reg |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Prescott, John |
| Harvey, Robert | Raffan, Keith |
| Hayes, J. | Rathbone, Tim |
| Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Haynes, Frank | Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Holt, Richard | Robertson, George |
| Home Robertson, John | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) | Rogers, Allan |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport East) | Rooker, J. W. |
| Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Janner, Hon Greville | Sheerman, Barry |
| Jessel, Toby | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood) |
| Key, Robert | Silvester, Fred |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'field) | Sims, Roger |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Smith, C. (lsl'ton S & F'bury) |
| Knox, David | Snape, Peter |
| Lambie, David | Spearing, Nigel |
| Lang, Ian | Speed, Keith |
| Latham, Michael | Spencer, Derek |
| Lawler, Geoffrey | Squire, Robin |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Lewis, Terence (Worsley) | Stern, Michael |
| Lilley, Peter | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Livsey, Richard | Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles) |
| Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) | Stott, Roger |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Lord, Michael | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| McCartney, Hugh | Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) |
| McCrindle, Robert | Thurnham, Peter |
| McCurley, Mrs Anna | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Wallace, James |
| MacGregor, Rt Hon John | Ward, John |
| McKay, Allen (Penistone) | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Wardle, C. (Bexhill) | Winnick, David |
| Warren, Kenneth | Wolfson, Mark |
| Watson, John | Wood, Timothy |
| Watts, John | Woodall, Alec |
| Welsh, Michael | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Whitfield, John | |
| Wigley, Dafydd | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Wilkinson, John | Mr. Michael Neubert and |
| Williams, Rt Hon A. | Mr. Tim Sainsbury. |
| Wilson, Gordon |
| NOES | |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Budgen, Nick | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Carlisle, John (Luton N) | Redmond, M. |
| Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Forrester, John | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) | Viggers, Peter |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Waller, Gary |
| Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Knight, Greg (Derby N) | |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Loyden, Edward | Mr. Christopher Murphy and |
| Ottaway, Richard | Mr. Peter Griffiths. |
| Parry, Robert |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Resolved,
§ That the continuance in force of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 1203) be approved.