COMPULSORY WEARING OF REAR SEAT BELTS BY CHILDREN (Hansard, 13 May 1988)

§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)
I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 9, after 'fitted', insert 'or has been fitted at any time'.
I shall not attempt to delay the procedings. I want the Bill to reach the statute book. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, especially after my frustrating experience yesterday. I sat through the debate on prisons because I wanted to make an important speech about the spread of AIDS in prisons and from there to the public outside, but I was not called. I sat through the next debate, too, on the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill, which affects my constituents. I was called to speak in that debate but I had only 30 seconds. The frustration left me with a sore throat. Despite the amendments that I have tabled to this Bill, I thought that again I would not be called. The frustration made me think that I was beginning to develop a sore throat. I need the regular exercise of speaking in the House to avoid such frustration.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) on his choice of subject. The Bill is full of good intentions. The Bill was not thoroughly debated in Committee. I noted that in Committee the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said that the last time a similar Bill was debated in Committee, five sittings were devoted to it. There was only one Committee sitting on this Bill. Consequently, on Report and Third Reading there must be a full debate. If not, the consequences will be serious. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) made that point earlier today.
The Bill is intended to save children's lives. In Committee, the Minister said that last year 60 children were killed and 7,000 injured when travelling unrestrained in the back of cars. Those figures are horrendous. Many of the children were killed or injured in low-speed crashes. As I came to the House this morning, I saw a little girl in the back of a car. She was bobbing up and down just as her father manoeuvred dangerously into a bus lane. A car or a skip might have been parked there, and there could have been an accident. I hope that the Minister will take action about unlighted skips that cause many accidents in my constituency and elsewhere.
My hon. Friends and I are worried about the abuse of police powers. During the miners' strike the police used all sorts of excuses to pull up miners while they were travelling in cars. If legislation of this kind had been on the statute book then, they might have used it to pull up miners who had children in the backs of their cars. We are worried 622 about the injustice that could be caused through sheer spite. However, the police complaints procedure has been improved. It could be improved further. We have to decide whether injustice should be tolerated if lives can be saved. The saving of life comes out on top. Despite the good intentions of the hon. Member for Cheadle, there are gaping loopholes in the Bill. My amendment seeks to close them and to improve the Bill.
New clause 2 provides that all motor car manufacturers that do not fit rear seat belts can be fined £1,000. Unfortunately, that new clause has not been called. I wanted to fill a loophole. I understand that this is no excuse for not doing it in the Bill. Some motor car manufacturers are anti-social when it comes to their profits and want to maximise them regardless of the safety implications. It is similar to the approach to unleaded petrol. Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) went to a seminar of motor car manufacturers to point out that a pathetic number of cars are produced to run on unleaded petrol, although the Chancellor boasted in his Budget speech about the improvements that there would be.
The amendment will prevent people ripping out rear seat belts just to get round the law. This may be done by second-hand car salesmen—a much maligned group who, despite doing a decent job to make a living, have a reputation for being unscrupulous. I recall that President Nixon was linked to second-hand car salesman. It was asked: "Would you buy a used car from this man?" In that case, it was proved true that one should not. A car without rear seat belts may be used as a selling point and be sold more cheaply. I am tempted to say that we may well have to apply the test: "Would you buy a used car from this man?" to the next leader of the Social and Liberal Democrats, but we shall see what happens. A clever solicitor may use the fact that seat belts have been ripped out to get round the law.
Legislation with loopholes may result in extra administration and costs to the police and courts, to no good effect. The original purpose of the legislation may not be achieved. Our job is to close loopholes. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment if the hon. Member for Cheadle can give me an assurance that he will carefully consider the matter and try to close this loophole with an amendment in the other place.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said, I think, that he was withdrawing the amendment—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Let us get this absolutely right. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) asked for assurances before he would withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Bottomley
The hon. Gentleman asked for assurances from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day). Vehicles registered after April 1987 must have rear seat belts fitted. Vehicles registered before do not. The amendment would be impracticable. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle may be able to give assurances that he will continue to consider the point, but the Government's clear advice is that it would make the law unenforceable, and it is important to have an enforceable law to meet the main aim of those who support the Bill, which is that more children should be protected more often.

§ Mr. Forth
I am slightly confused. I was waiting for the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to explain what his amendment involved and what its aim was, but he did not do so. There may be some substance in the amendment. I thought that the hon. Gentleman might say that if people removed seat belts already fitted in a vehicle with a view to evading the purpose of the Bill, the amendment would catch them. He referred to a loophole and I assume that that is the one that he meant, in which case there is an interesting divergence of view between the hon. Member for Leyton and the Minister.
I cannot imagine why my hon. Friend the Minister did not want to explain his views rather more fully. Let us suppose that there are anchorages or fixing points in the rear of the vehicle and someone removes the seat belts to exploit the loophole to which the hon. Member for Leyton referred. I should have thought that it was an eminently enforceable, checkable and policeable proposition to say that it would be possible to establish that that had happened. If a vehicle was involved in a road traffic accident involving injury, the police could readily satisfy themselves whether the vehicle contained anchorage or fixing points for seat belts and whether those seat belts had been removed from it.

§ Mr. Stern
My hon. Friend is being carried away by flights of fancy. I have just purchased a second-hand car. Under the amendment, I would have had to ask the previous owner whether there had ever been belts in the car. As he is dead, I might have some difficulties. Whatever the merits of the amendment, it is wholly unenforceable in law. I invite the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to drop it so that we can get on.

§ Mr. Forth
I do not think that my hon. Friend is right. Even though he may not be gifted with great mechanical knowledge or interest, I am sure that by looking at the car even superficially he could satisfy himself that rear seat belts had been fitted or that provision had been made for them. That is not an unreasonable or impossible request.
I believe that there is substance in the amendment. I am not satisfied with the peremptory way in which the Minister has dismissed it. He has not satisfied me. I wonder whether he has satisfied the House—

§ Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood)
I am satisfied.

§ Mr. Forth
The hon. Lady may be satisfied, but I am not.

§ Mr. Day
If my hon. Friend will allow it, I would like the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to tell us whether he is satisfied and will withdraw his amendment.

§ Mr. Forth
My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. If the hon. Member for Leyton had explained the matter a little more fully, and if it had been dealt with in a more leisurely manner rather than in an unseemly rush, probably we could have resolved it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) must restrain himself. He was getting excited and encouraging the hon. Member for Leyton to go a little more quickly than was strictly necessary. Let me give my hon. Friend some advice. If he allowed the matter to unfold in the fullness of time, he might find that we progress rather more quickly than we are at present. I have been provoked quite needlessly to my 624 feet, partly because the hon. Member for Leyton could not fully explain the amendment and partly because the Minister gave a most unsatisfactory response.

§ Ms. Short
I shall attempt to help the hon. Gentleman. I heard both the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and the Minister's response. At first it seemed to me that there was a loophole and that people could remove seat belts and prevent the law from being implemented. The Minister then explained that the law already provides that every car produced after 1986–87 must have rear seat belts. That is an absolute requirement. Therefore, if one removes them, one is in breach of the law. That is a better, neater and tighter way of achieving the object of the amendment.

§ Mr. Forth
I am grateful to the hon. Lady who, in her inimitably elegant way, has made in an intervention points that she might have been tempted to make in a speech. She may still be tempted to make a speech—

§ Ms. Short
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Forth
That is not the case. However, if the hon. Member for Leyton were to wish to withdraw his amendment, he would have to ask the leave of the House. I am not prepared to give him my leave to withdraw it unless the Minister can satisfy me about why the point that he made about unenforceabilky is relevant—

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
The point that I should like to share with my hon. Friend—I think that I have already shared it with the House—is that there is no loophole. Vehicles registered after April 1987 must have rear seat belts fitted. The provisions of this Bill would then have effect. There is no practical way of knowing whether vehicles registered before 1987 had previously had restraints fitted. Let us suppose, for example, that a. previous owner had a rear-facing infant carrier as part of the car and that that was taken away when the car was sold. Tracking back through the vehicle's history is. unenforceable. I spoke briefly because I thought that my explanation was clear.

§ Mr. Forth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is now suggesting that I alone was unable to follow his clear explanation. That is typical of my hon. Friend's incisiveness, elegance of thought and ability to put me down without any great effort. However, I am still not happy because I still believe—I shall make this point only once again because I do not want to delay the House—that many types of fittings for rear seat belts would leave a clear trace on the vehicle—for example, mounting points or drilled holes. I should have thought that it would be eminently easy to trace whether there had been a fitting before.
As I seem to be the only hon. Member who can see that point I do not think that it is right to pursue it. I shall trust, as I nearly always do, my hon. Friend the Minister and leave the matter in his safe hands, and I shall leave the matter, as I sometimes do, to the judgment of the hon. Member for Leyton and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle, the promoter of the Bill, to see whether they can sort it out between them, given the hints that I have dropped.

§ Mr. Day
My hon. Friend the Minister is right that there could certainly be some enforcement difficulties. I compliment the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 625 his approach. I know that he is a sincere and objective supporter of the Bill and I am grateful for his support. I hope that, in view of the Minister's explanation, which I found satisfactory, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment and allow us to proceed.

§ Mr. Cohen
I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. It was important to air the matter and to hear what the Minister had to say. We shall read carefully his comments about unenforceability and, if need be, the matter can be raised in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Waller
I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'under the age of and insert 'between the ages of three and'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)
With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 13, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'fourteen' and insert 'sixteen'.

§ Mr. Waller
I recall the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who, in 1980, was the Minister for Roads and Traffic. He drew attention to the fact that it could be dangerous to require a small child to wear a seat belt that was not intended for a child. He stated: If the belt is worn in such a way that it is across the neck of the child, the belt is a positive danger."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 23 January 1980; c. 84] In the regulations that we are to lay before the House—we do not have an opportunity at this stage to know exactly what form they will take—my hon. Friend the Minister is to state what types of belt should be worn in what circumstances. Presumably there will be some reference to the ages and sizes of children.

§ Ms. Mildred Gordon (Bow and Poplar)
Would it not be advisable to specify in the regulations that alternative linkage points should be provided? From my experience of adult seat belts, I know that cars are not designed for short fat ladies. The belt cuts across my neck and in an accident I should probably be decapitated. Some newer cars provide alternative linkage points so that people can choose the one that suits them best, but it is not a requirement for all cars. With children, who vary greatly in size according to their age, it is even more important to provide alternative fixing points for seat belts.

§ Mr. Waller
I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of that. Indeed, in my discussions, I have had many complaints about the difficulty of fitting children into certain types of restraint. The search must continue for better types of restraint so that children can be secured safely and the task is less ardous for parents. Parents would then be more willing to undertake the task and the children might be more comfortable and thus less anxious to extricate themselves in the way that I described earlier.
The regulations will evitably be somewhat complicated. My hon Friend the Minister has confirmed that if restraints are fitted they will be required to be worn. As there is no compulsion for child restraints to be fitted, some parents, guardians or drivers may decide, as they will be legally entitled to decide, not to put in special child safety restraints. I understand that such restraints are quite expensive and although one or two companies have very 626 good schemes enabling parents to obtain them on hire or lease, some parents will simply not do so and there is no requirement that they should. The regulations being somewhat complicated, it seems reasonable to assume that some drivers will believe that because there are belts in the car those belts must be worn by children too young or too small to wear them safely. That is a matter of considerable concern, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and many others have pointed out, that that could constitute a positive danger to some children.

§ Mrs. Wise
The difficulties that the hon. Gentleman describes are mechanical aspects of design and thus capable of being overcome in the ways suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon). Does the hon. Gentleman agree that babies are most capable of being safely restrained and that the advantage of this legislation will be that children grow up with the habit of being restrained and parents will acquire the expectation that restraints should be provided? The hon. Gentleman's amendment seems to go in the opposite direction. Has he considered those points?

§ Mr. Waller
I entirely agree and I would firmly advise anyone with any doubt on the matter that they should ensure that any child, virtually from birth, is securely restrained. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) has stated positively, however, that there is no intention of making it a legal requirement at this time to fit such equipment. That being so, whether we like it or not, inevitably there will be some cars where that equipment is not fitted.
Also, parents who normally carry teenagers, who could happily wear a normal belt, may occasionally find that they have to carry a baby or a toddler in the rear, but they do not have the suitable fitting. There is no proposal that such a fitting should be required. If there are no belts, it will be permissible for the child to be carried in the rear of the vehicle.
12.45 pm
Even if my hon. Friend the Minister introduces regulations that specify an exemption for a child of under three or four to be carried, there is always a danger, because parents cannot be expected to be familiar with the detailed regulations but may know from the Bill that there is a requirement that, if belts are fitted, they should be worn. Therefore, they may perhaps wrongly rely on the standard equipment that is now required to be fitted to all motor vehicles.

§ Mrs. Wise
Will not the hon. Gentleman join some of us in urging that the regulations should ensure that appropriate fittings for infants are included, along with the compulsory fittings for adults? Is not that the way in which we should proceed? Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that it is babies who are more vulnerable because they are the lightest? It is easier for them to be thrown through the roof or the windscreen.

§ Mr. Waller
Indeed. We have all seen the horrific films of mock-ups, with babies being thrown forward through the windscreen of a car. I particularly condemn adults who hold a baby in front of them, perhaps in the front of the car. In many cases a baby has been killed by the weight of 627 an adult or crushed between the adult and the dashboard or windscreen, but most often the baby is thrown forward through the windscreen.
We know from experience that if a person is ejected from a vehicle, especially a baby, his chances of survival are much less. I remember cases on motorways of children, because of a sudden change of direction, being ejected from a car and not surviving.
In 1980 the Department of Transport produced a draft document, which said: People under 5 feet in height (including children) may he unable to wear a seat belt without discomfort because the diagonal strap lies too high on the body. I reiterate the need to devise better fittings in future, which can be adjusted. However, unfortunately, we are not talking about the ideal; we are talking about the present law and how parents and drivers will deal with the law as set out in the Bill.
We have no opportunity to see the proposed regulations and it now appears that there will be no statement before they are laid, so we have to take the Bill at face value. Parents or drivers might make the reasonable assumption that they must use a belt, whatever it may be, because it is fitted. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle has said time and again that if a belt is fitted, it is required to be worn. That is why I tabled the amendment.
I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle and the Minister have to say. The great risk with such legislation is that it is not clear and we can read into it what we will. We do not know what the regulations may be and we fear that if they are not straightforward—I do not see how they can be, bearing in mind the different permutations for which one would have to make allowances—we may well put children into greater danger than they are in without the legislation.

§ Mr. Day
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has taken great interest in the Bill from the word go and I have no doubt that his intentions are honourable. Indeed, on many occasions his contributions have been constructive and helpful. But with all due respect, the matter in amendment No. 20 is undoubtedly best considered in regulations and I should like to make some suggestions about what the regulations might be.
The choice of three years in the amendment is arbitrary, and I cannot see why that period has been chosen. Equally, what the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) said about babies being at risk is correct. There is no reason why the Bill should exclude babies and toddlers in appropriate restraints. There is certainly no published evidence to suggest that the use of adult belts by small children increases the risk of serious or fatal injury. However, there is mixed opinion about whether parents should be given no option but to restrain their children in this manner. That matter should be covered by regulations.

§ Mr. Waller
My right hon. and learned Friend the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that it would be a positive danger if belts were worn the wrong way and across the neck of a child. It has been suggested by a former transport Minister, who has studied the matter with care, that we could therefore put a child into greater danger, despite our best intentions.

§ Mr. Day
That is indeed a correct quotation, but my right hon. and learned Friend was referring to a belt not applied appropriately; it is not said that it is dangerous to 628 use an adult belt. Many types of equipment can be dangerous if used incorrectly, so that is not a relevant criticism of the Bill.

§ Mr. Sheerman
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the law relating to chidren in front seats of cars already stipulates that they must wear seat belts and that there is little record of any serious or minor injury to children wearing adult seat belts in front seats?

§ Mr. Day
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct.
I see no reason why regulations should not take account of this important question and why babies under one year old should not have an approved infant carrier or carry-cot restraint. I see no reason why for children aged between one and four any type of approved child restraint should not be suitable. For children between the ages of five and 13 any type of approved child restraint or adult seat belt is suitable. If we approach the matter from that angle, bearing in mind that the Minister has the best interests of children at heart and has given assurances that he will consult widely, the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that the House will oppose it.

§ Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)
As, alas, the attempts of hon. Members who supported the Abortion (Amendment) Bill are to be thwarted, I feel some relief from the obligation that I placed on myself not to speak in this debate. Perhaps I may address a few remarks to the amendment, which I support.
My bona fides of interest in this subject stretch back many years—before most Opposition Members appeared in the House. I have exercised enormous self-restraint since my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) introduced the Bill. Although the inevitability of life and the decision of the House in making the wearing of seat belts compulsory lead us to the next stage of accepting that that compulsion will apply to children, it should not lead us to produce legislation that is nonsense. We must try to ensure that legislation makes sense, is reasonable and practicable and will last some time on the statute book.
I support the amendment. Nonsense is inherent in the Bill about the age at which children are expected to wear belts because there is to be no compulsory fitting of seat belts suitable for small children. Under the Bill, parents will feel obliged to use seat belts for their children, and that may cause them considerable danger.
I recall that for many years the RAC opposed the compulsory wearing of sealt belts, principally because it thought it was quite immoral to oblige people to wear belts that might kill them. We have discussed the matter further over the years and, more recently, the then Minister responsible for the legislation, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said: If the belt is worn in such a way that it is across the neck of the child, the belt is a positive danger…With the exception of the tiny child, it is possible to adjust the belt and the way that the child is sitting so as to make the belt a positive protection."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 23 January 1980; c. 84.]
He was saying that a seat belt could be reasonably adjusted, but not for a tiny child. I should have thought that that was manifest good sense—as is anything that my right hon. and learned Friend says. It is self-evident that one cannot safely put a tiny child in a seat belt that is not specifically tailored for it.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) intervened earlier and said, if I understood him correctly, 629 that it is necessary for children sitting in the front seat to wear a seat belt and that there is no evidence of any great harm being done to them. The answer is that no parent with a ha'porth of commonsense or concern for the safety of their tiny child would dream of putting it in the front seat of a motor car unless the child was being held or restrained by an adult, and the dangers of that are self-evident. The hon. Member for Huddersfield has a long history of interest in this subject, and much knowledge about it, but what he suggested has never been tested. Tests would arise only under the Bill.
My first objection to the Bill and reason for supporting the amendment is that to leave matters as they are is manifestly an invitation to danger for small children. Although those of us discussing these matters are very sensible, intelligent and reasonable I am afraid that one cannot always say that about everyone in society. I have seen the most unbelievable things happening in cars where parents have obviously not exercised any common sense over the way in which their very small children behave. It is perfectly possible for a parent to believe that the law states that they must wear a seat belt and that therefore their children must also wear one. Therefore the seat belt in the car must be put round the child no matter how old that child is. The courts are full of stupid, irresponsible, thoughtless and senseless parents who have behaved in a way in which some people may consider to be grossly negligent, if not criminal, with regard to very small children. That is life. That is what happens.
1 pm
I am afraid that if there is no qualification in this legislation to the effect that people with very small children need to have a seat belt fixed in the rear which is not meant for a very small child, very small children will inevitably sit in the back of cars wearing seat belts that are wholly inappropriate and dangerous to those children. That is why we should amend this part of the Bill.

§ Mr. Day
My hon. and learned Friend said that if the Bill is left as it is it will be an invitation to danger. That is an incredible statement to make about a Bill designed to protect the lives of young children. Surely the greatest danger for children would occur if the Bill did not become an Act. It is essential that the Bill is successful.
My hon. and learned Friend also said that the courts are full of people who have not complied with the law. He must accept that the present seat belt law is self-enforcing, and this legislation would be the same. In an opinion poll on this matter 90 per cent. of parents said that they saw the logic in compulsory restraint of their children. How on earth can my hon. and learned Friend claim that the courts will be full of people who will not comply with this?

§ Mr. Lawrence
I apologise if my lack of practice in dealing with these matters has caused me to express myself so badly. My hon. Friend misunderstands me. I do not for one moment doubt his bona fides and good intentions, which all of us share. It is very important that, in practice, we should protect our children from danger. However, there is a gap between that excellent intention, which we all share, and the practice that will emerge from the Bill. We must get the practice right. No amount of good intentions will save children's lives if they are put in danger in practice.
630 There is another danger facing a small child wearing an unsuitable belt. I am not referring to the fact that the child may be thrown from the back seat to the front and somehow damaged, or thrown into the well in the back seat area and hurt. I am referring to the fact that the child may be strangled by the belt if he is caught in a crash and minutes pass before he can be released from the wreckage.
That is why we must be particularly careful that the legislation makes practical sense. We all agree that the end in view is the safety of children and I do not for a moment resile from the necessity of such a measure being introduced if it is practical.

§ Mrs. Gorman
Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of a case reported in the newspapers recently where such a tragedy occurred? A very small child was belted in the rear of a car that was involved in an accident. The child could not be released and the mother watched her child burn to death because it was strapped into the back seat.

§ Mr. Lawrence
We can always find examples to support either side of the argument. My hon. Friend has put a finger on a particular case, underlining and supporting the point I was making.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
I hope to say a word or two later, but I intervene now because I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was referring to a widely publicised tragic accident in which a child was burn to death when the car in which it was travelling was hit by another. However, subsequent expert investigations revealed that no child restraint had been fitted.

§ Mr. Lawrence
That shows that particular examples raised by one side of the House or the other may not always be reliable. Ultimately, we must rely on our own experience and common sense.
My first, and most important, single objection is that if we are not careful in introducing an amendment, we may put on to the statute book a measure that would result in causing the death or injury of the very children whom we seek to protect—principally, very young children who would not normally wear an adult restraint of the type most of us have in mind.
My second objection is that the Bill as drafted places an obligation upon the driver to excuse himself. He is required to explain why a child under the age of 14, being carried in a car in which a seat belt was fitted, was not properly restrained by it. That transfers the burden in a criminal matter to the accused. The essence of our law is that the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt. It is not just a matter of theory. If there were to be any other general principle, we would need 10,000 times the number of courts that we have now.

§ Ms. Short
The hon. and learned Gentleman should be in favour of that.

§ Mr. Lawrence
No—I do not invite any more competition.
If we required people to give an account of themselves every time that we did not like what they were doing, because it was allegedly contrary to some supposed idea of the law, the legal system would become impossible to administer. There is a practical reason why the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to establish guilt. There is also the question of civil liberties, but I shall not waste the time of the House now in describing why that is so. Courts 631 are very jealous about creating too many situations in which the obligation is upon the accused person to give an account of himself, even if that account does not have to satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt but only on the balance of probabilities.
There are many examples, though again I shall not take up the time of the House describing them all, where that burden of proof is reversed. It is always reversed where it is manifestly unjust or impossible for the law to be enforced unless a serious obligation is placed on the accused to explain himself—such as in cases involving the possession of an offensive weapon. If it is manifestly clear that it is an offensive weapon, obviously a person should be in possession of it in public only if he has some important excuse; the burden is on that person to explain himself.
What on earth is the justification for allowing the police to bring a prosecution against a person whose child was not restrained by a seat belt fitted in the rear of the vehicle? Why should such a person be required to go to court and offer a reasonable excuse? Why should the burden be transferred in that way? Why change the whole tenor of British law? Some of us have warned that the point will soon be reached where practically every item of legislation passed by the House will require that defendants give a reasonable excuse for their actions. This seems a splendid example. We have got into the habit of placing the burden of explanation on the accused, so it is very simple to put it into the Bill. I am against that on principle: I do not think that we should ever transfer the burden, unless it is important for the securing of justice in a serious criminal matter.

§ Mr. Waller
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that particularly difficult circumstances would arise if the driver were accompanied by only one person—a young child? Would it not cause considerable problems for a child to be expected to come to court and respond to questioning? After all we are ultimately dealing with the criminal law.

§ Mr. Lawrence
My hon. Friend tempts me, but he must not. It is precisely that sort of question that triggers off a temptation in me to spend the next hour or two explaining exactly why what he says is right. But I must resist the urge, however tempting it is. I am merely outlining my objections. If I went into chapter and verse of why I am making them, we could carry on until the end of the sitting, and, if we had another day, until the end of that day as well. I am specifically restraining myself—as if I were wearing a seat belt! I shall move on quickly to my third objection.
My hon. Friend the Minister has just said—and will say it again, no doubt—that these fears are unfounded, because provision will be made by regulation. I feel, however, that we must stop legislating by regulation. It is all too easy for the Government to say, "Give us the powers and we will regulate." The trouble with regulations is that we debate them from 10 pm until 11.30 pm or even later, and some of us who wish to speak are unable to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Regulations are an entirely inappropriate method of legislation, unless there is no other way.
Although I have the greatest confidence in my hon. Friend the Minister, and in the likelihood that the regulations will receive the widest consultation and 632 magnificent support from everyone and every organisation, I do not know how long he will be Transport Minister. I do not know whether I shall feel the same confidence in his successor, or in his successor's successor. I do not even know whether, when the matter is implemented by regulation, the same Government will be in office—although I am of course as confident as it is possible to be. [Interruption] I hope that I shall not be tempted down that line, because I know that you would stop me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Government by regulation is government by ignorance. We who are passing the laws now are ignorant of what will be in future regulations. We are signing a blank cheque.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is now straying to the merits and demerits of regulations in general. He must direct his remarks to the amendment.

§ Mr. Lawrence
I am grateful to you Mr. Deputy Speaker, for bringing me into line, and I shall direct my remarks specfically to the amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister will say that I have no need to fear the use of rear restraints for tiny tots, because he will make a regulation.

§ Mr. Forth
My hon. and learned Friend will recall that earlier this morning our hon. Friend the Minister reassured us that extensive consultations would take place. Does he not feel that that will deal entirely with any reservations that he may have? He knows about the process of consultation between a Minister and other r j 8-1 interested parties. Our hon. Friend mentioned taxi drivers and responded to an intervention about the disabled; he is clearly prepared to talk to many different groups about the possible effect of the regulations. Does that not reassure my hon. and learned Friend?

§ Mr. Lawrence
My hon. Friend is tempting me down another avenue that goes on for miles and miles. Those of us who have been active in this place know that consultations do not always end with the result that is anticipated when they are lovingly referred to by those who are to make the consultations. I have spoken for four and a half hours on a subject where there were consultations, consultations and yet more consultations. At the end of all that, the conclusion was a load of rubbish. Therefore, I have no great confidence that the mere fact of consultations taking place will achieve the correct result.
1.15 pm
Sometimes, after one has been consulting for a long time, one says, "Well, one person says one thing, another says something else and the whole thing is confusion. I have to come to a decision, and this is it." Opposition Members say that that is what happened on the community charge. They say that there were consultations, the Government were confused and that they came to the wrong conclusion. Therefore, consultations are not an excuse for regulations that may yet come before the House and which are unsigned cheques.
I know that the House is anxious to get on and I shall conclude. It will be dangerous if the Bill remains in its current form without an exception for tiny children. That was referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the the Duchy of Lancaster in his speech in 1980. It will be dangerous for the tiny child. It is inappropriate to bring forward legislation by shovelling it 633 under the compendium of regulations that may or may not emerge in a form that we may or may not like and which we may or may not have an opportunity to debate. It is wholly against the principles of our law that we should, at every turn, place the obligation upon the accused person to explain himself. For those reasons, as the Bill stands on this matter, it is wrong and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) is right and I support it.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
Some time ago my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) tabled what I think the House will understand to be a probing amendment in order to consider the issues contained in that amendment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has told us about his considerable restraint in the early stages of the Bill—

§ Ms. Short
Restraint?

§ Mr. Bottomley
Yes, I acknowledge the use of the word "restraint". Single-handedly my hon. and learned Friend could have blocked the Bill and he could still do so. The House needs to acknowledge that.

§ Mr. Lawrence
I have no intention of doing so.

§ Mr. Bottomley
I should pay a back-handed tribute to my hon. and learned Friend. I was voting for front seat belt wearing before he was. In fact, I am not sure whether he has got round to voting for front seat belt wearing. the countries that passed the front seat belt law 10 years ago are mainly stuck at compliance rates of about 60 per cent. We have a compliance rate of 95 per cent. Our experience shows that the British public will accept what is sensible, especially when Parliament has considered the issue, not necessarily at great length, but in some depth.
My belief and the belief of the supporters of the Bill and many who are agnostic is that if the Bill comes into effect with appropriate regulations that provide for exemptions, the wearing and protection rate for children and infants and, by extension—although not covered by the law—for adults in the back of cars, will increase and that avoidable disadvantage, distress, injury and misery will be avoided on a significant scale.
It is right that the question of appropriate restraints should be considered. However, if we are to obtain the benefit of consultation and the views of those outside the House as well as within, we need to have consultation. We need to bring forward the issues so that they can be considered inside and outside the House.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley will not consider it necessary to press the amendment and to write an age limit into the Bill. That would be a mistake. It would put more people at risk and lose the advantage of consultation.

§ Mr. Waller
Does my hon. Friend consider that it would be better to go away and think further, accept that there is a need for legislation, and to come back with a Bill that contained more information and was more carefully drafted and less vague that the one before the House? Before too long, the House may have the opportunity of considering legislation on this subject, and it would be better if we could see what is proposed. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. 634 Lawrence) that there is a real danger that confusion will be caused in the minds of those using cars if they cannot easily discern what is required of them. That would cause more danger, not less.

§ Mr. Bottomley
The sensible and right thing to do for parents and other adults who carry children in cars is well-known from television programmes, Department of Transport advice and the activities of a large group of organisations which support the Bill, not only because they want legislation but because they have professional experience and family organisational experience of the extra protection needed for children.
I do not need to remind the House of the extent of inquiries into the number of child abuse cases. I do not want to draw a narrow parallel with parents who regularly expose their children to unnecessary risk by taking them unrestrained in cars, but sometimes we get our balance of priorities wrong by not considering the end result that we are trying to avoid—the unnecessary death of children.
The Bill itself is plain. It provides that from a date to be announced children in the backs of cars must be restrained. What is not clear and precise is the degree of exemption that the regulations will cover. The Bill cannot be accused of being vague. If the regulations are to be acceptable, wide consultation is required which those who have questioned the details of the Bill would want Parliament to require the Government to carry out before producing the regulations.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton discussed the question of reasonable excuse. Reasonable excuse is an opportunity for those who have a child unrestrained in the back of the car not to be convicted. I should have thought that someone with experience of prosecuting and defending would prefer it not to be an absolute offence. In the rare cases of prosecution enforcement, the prosecution would have to demonstrate that the child was under a certain age, was in a car where restraint was fitted, and was not wearing it. The reasonable excuse question arises as to whether they should be convicted. Reasonable excuse allows mitigating circumstances to be put forward, and I should have thought that my hon. and learned Friend would have pushed for such provision to be made if it was not included in the Bill.
Regulations can keep up with changes in technology. We have heard about those who are smaller, and we know about some of the adaptations for infants, for younger children and for adults. There can be adjustments to the shoulder height and adjustments at the back of the belt so that it can be brought down to suit any shoulder. Regulations allow future technology improvements to be taken into account, rather than waiting for the lottery of the private Member's Bill procedure.
It is not the tradition of the House that the Government should promote such a Bill. It requires only one hon. Member to prevent a Bill from getting through, and if that hon. Member is not satisfied the Bill will not get through. However, if the Bill does not get through today, hundreds of thousands of children will be left unprotected for years until another hon. Member brings forward a Bill, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), and allows the House to consider whether it is possible to bring in extra protection.

§ Mr. Bill Michie (Sheffield, Heeley)
I fully support the Minister's point that the Bill is important. It may not cover 635 everything that concerns me. This is not a filibuster. I wrote on 22 December to the promoters of the Bill about extending it, and I fully realise that that is not possible. Nevertheless, the fact that the Bill has certain weaknesses is no justification for it being lost, and we should at least trust the Government and the promoters of the Bill to try to extend it later on.

§ Mr. Bottomley
I do not accuse any hon. Member of trying to lose the Bill. I welcome some of the comments that have been made. Improvements were made in Committee, and there will be further improvements to the Bill if we make progress.
During the remaining hour and six minutes of the debate I ask those who have doubts about the Bill to consider allowing the Bill to be passed so that it may be considered in another place.

§ Mr. Waller
My hon. Friend the Minister has made the reasonable point that a subject of this kind is normally the subject of private Member's Bills. If a Government Bill dealing with road safety were to be considered by the House in the relatively near future, is my hon. Friend able to confirm that it would provide an opportunity for a better-drawn provision of this nature to be incorporated in it? That is what happened on a previous occasion. This is not a once only attempt; if the Bill is lost, might there not be an opportunity before very long to introduce better proposals that could be incorporated in legislation?

§ Mr. Bottomley
Probably, but at a cost of 60 children dead and several thousand injured.

§ Mr. Tony Lloyd
I am conscious of the fact that there are some hon. Members who want to frustrate the Bill's progress. The Opposition agree with many of the points that the Minister has made, in particular that no advantage would be served if, as a matter of principle, those up to the age of three were removed from the provisions of the Bill. There are strong reasons for saying that they are the most vulnerable and most in need of protection of this kind. Both by size and ability to communicate they are the least able to make up their own minds.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has made an important point about the type of restraint that should be used. it is important that the regulations should get it right, but the evidence shows that a child in the rear of a car who is restrained by any kind of restraint is better off than a child who is completely unrestrained.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) referred to a particular case, but the Minister assured the House that she was wrong. I read about the case that the hon. Lady quoted and I was horrified by it. I can think of nothing worse for a parent than to see his other child burning to death in the back of a car. All hon. Members realise that that could happen, but we have to strike a balance. It would be irresponsible not to recognise that something that will save life in the vast majority of cases might also cause death, but all the evidence clearly favours the restraint of children who travel in the back of cars.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
Whenever a case is reported of a child under restraint having died in circumstances similar to those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) rightly referred, I make it a habit to ask for an investigation. During the last two years there have been two reports. The first referred to this fire, about 636 which I have given information. The second referred to a child who was travelling in the front seat of a car. It transpired that an unrestrained adult in the back of the car was thrown forward and crushed the child in the front seat. I shall continue to ensure that any reported cases are investigated and, where necessary, I shall make a report to the House.

§ Mr. Lloyd
I thank the Minister for intervening. He said that there have been two cases, in the first of which it was suspected that—

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
The first was the case to which I referred earlier, where there was no restraint, though earlier reports said that there was. The second case was of an unrestrained adult in the back of a car who was thrown forward, leading to the death or injury of a child in the front of the car.

§ Mr. Lloyd
That has to be compared with the fact that during the same two-year period over 100 children lost their lives precisely because they were not restrained.
I appeal to the hon. Member for Keighley to withdraw this amendment and allow this matter to be properly debated by the public and in Parliament when the regulations are in draft form. We shall then know what we ought to do to ensure that there is a safe means of restraint for children up to three years of age.

§ Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay)
My inclination is to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), but I am a little confused about how the mother holding a baby in the back of a car is affected by these proposals. Legislation often goes through the House without hon. Members envisaging what happens in real life.
Imagine me, driving my car and seeing a friend with her baby. I stop, offer her a lift and she gets into the back of my car with her young baby, which she is holding in her arms. Naturally, she would fold up the carry-cot and put it in beside her. My car is fitted with seat belts, so what does my friend do? Does she wear the belt and strap it round herself and the child? Is she required under the law to sit the child next to her and strap it in?
I am confused and should like my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) to make the matter clear. I could put my friend in the position, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has pointed out, of committing an offence through a third party if I do not say, "If you get into my car, you must hold your baby in such a way that the seat belt stretches over you and the baby and holds you all back in the seat." The position is confusing. When we stop to give people lifts, we do not always think about exactly what is the law.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
My hon. Friend makes a serious point. Because we want to consult family organisations and perhaps parent-teacher associations, to ensure that clear advice is given and that the regulations which define the law are right, we are asking my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) to withdraw the amendment rather than push it to a vote.
May I say in response to some of my hon. Friend's points, which people outside are raising, that one should never put a baby on one's lap in a car, because if there is a sudden deceleration, such as in a crash, that baby 637 becomes one's cushion, and babies are very bad cushions. "Never put a baby inside the seat belt with you because the baby will suffer far more than you." I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it possible for me to offer that advice to the outside world. The details of the regulations will depend on discussions and consultation, and my hon. Friend is right to make that point.

§ Mrs. Gorman
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, but what am I to do? Let us say that I am with a tiny baby. I get into the car with it and my instinct is to hold it in my arms. It is a small baby and it wriggles about a lot —it does not know that when it is put down on its own it is supposed to stay there, and it is likely to flop on to the floor. I may be distracted if the car brakes suddenly. Is my hon. Friend the Minister telling us that I have to put my very small baby on the seat beside me, possibly strap myself in and then find that the seat belt cannot stretch across my baby so the baby lies on the seat beside me? Am I supposed to sit in such a way that I keep both my hands on the baby on that seat? This is a practical problem.
I may have two small children. My instinct is to strap in the child who sits up and to hold the other. To say that I should not hold it practically goes against human nature. Of course I shall hold the baby. I shall not stop to think what the law is and what priciples I must obey. These are the kind of practical difficulties faced in real life. It is important that we envisage these circumstances.

§ Ms. Richardson
The scenario that the hon. Lady describes is very telling. The Minister said that one should never hold a baby on one's lap. The hon. Lady has asked what one does with the baby and with one's self. Suppose the baby is sick, needs a cuddle or is frightened. The instinct of the woman in the back is to take the baby on her lap. Is the Minister saying that the driver should stop the car and say, "I cannot carry you"? I understand the Minister's point about the danger of the child becoming a cushion for the adult, but in some cases mothers will take a child on to their lap without thinking about it.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
The House may wish to consider one or two more amendments and to give the Bill its Third Reading if possible. In the hope of being helpful, may I explain. Parents ought to have a better chance of seeing the PACTS video or the "That's Life" material, which shows what happens when one carries a baby on one's lap. I am not saying that parents should never carry their baby on their laps, but no parent would do so regularly having seen videos of what happens, even in low-speed crashes.
It is also worth emphasising that the Bill is likely to cover the 80 per cent. of children who mainly travel in their family's car. There are other vehicles and other circumstances, but most children are exposed to risk most often in their own family's car, and if restraints are fitted they should be used. In those circumstances, any parents who have spent £20, £40 or £140 on a radio cassette and have failed to spend £20 or £40 on appropriate restraints for their children are betraying their children.

§ Mrs. Gorman
The Minister has still not dealt with my point, which is about what happens in real life. Will a mother carrying two children in the circumstances that I described be made technically guilty of an offence? Will the driver who gave the lift be taken to court or will it be the 638 mother, who did not make use of the seat belt in the back seat for her child. Who the dickens will it be? Do we really want parents to be brought to court and fined in those circumstances? We are on the road to Cleveland; we are encouraging people to intervene in family matters who should not be involved at all.

§ Mr. Day
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) overlooks the point that that moral dilemma already exists. My Bill does not create the difficulties. If the restraints are there, the problem already arises. My Bill does not affect it in any way and I do not understand why she thinks that it does.
Secondly, the Minister has made it clear that the very point that she raises—I agree that it is a point of considerable concern—will be considered in introducing the regulations. That is why the Bill is drafted as it is.

§ Mrs. Gorman
I have made it clear that the exemption of children under three is a move in the right direction, because it allows a mother faced with that difficulty legally to hold her child. That is her natural instinct. I have taken on board the Minister's point that that is dangerous, but it happens in real life and I do not want it to be made into an offence under the Bill if it ever reaches the statute book.

§ Mr. Waller
I do not want to be deliberately obstructive. We have had a good discussion about the problem, and I accept that three years is not necessarily the right age. I am not entirely satisfied with the responses I have received but in the interests of making progress and to provide an opportunity to discuss matters that are still important, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Waller
I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 1, line 27 at end insert— '(3A) Regulations under this section shall include an exemption for any child holding a valid certificate signed by a medical practitioner to the effect that it is inadvisable on medical grounds for him to wear a seat belt. (3B) If the driver of a motor vehicle is informed by a constable that he may be prosecuted for an offence under subsection (2) above, he shall not, in proceedings for that offence, be entitled to rely on an exception afforded to a child by a certificate referred to in subsection (3A) above unless—

(a) it is produced to the constable at the time he is so informed; or

(b) within seven days after the date on which he is so informed, it is produced at such police station as he may have specified to the constable; or

(c) it is produced there as soon as is reasonably practicable; or

(d) it is not reasonably practicable for it to be produced there before the day on which the proceedings are commenced;

and for the purposes of this subsection the laying of the information or, in Scotland, the service of the complaint on the accused shall be treated as the commencement of the proceedings.'. The Bill as originally presented to the House was seriously defective in that it made no provision for exemption certificates for children who, for medical reasons—physical or psychological—would have difficulty in wearing a seat belt.
The earlier provision preventing children from being carried unbelted in the front of a car, needed another provision about exemption certificates, because it was still possible for children to be carried in the rear of a car. If we passed the Bill without provision for exemption certificates, some children could not be carried in a car at all. Therefore, my amendment provides for exemptions 639 from the wearing of seat belts for children if they hold a valid certificate that has been signed by a medical practitioner.
There has been discussion about the cost of such certificates. Previous legislation provided that in certain circumstances a Minister may stipulate the cost of such a certificate. I suspect that the feeling now is that such a provision is not necessary. However, I am a little concerned about the sorts of figures that are mentioned. I heard yesterday of a medical practitioner charging £18 for writing a certificate to the effect that an adult had a medical difficulty which meant that that person should not be required to wear a seat belt. I can envisage that in certain circumstances, perhaps for a mother on a low income with several children, the cost could cause great difficulties if there were no provision for stipulating the maximum fee. Sometimes medical practitioners ask what may appear to be quite large sums for writing a simple certificate.
It is important that medical practitioners are given some indication of the circumstances in which children should he granted a certificate. Is the fact that a child throws a tantrum every time he is put into the back of a car and strapped in, perhaps thus causing more danger to the occupants of the car, sufficient reason for a medical practitioner to write a certificate? It is important that the circumstances are set out. It might be a good idea if a statement incorporating such provisions were placed before the House. However, one way or another, it is important that the circumstances should be fully set out.
More consideration should be given to the kind of psychological problems which might lead children to be entitled to an exemption certificate. I am persuaded that there are relatively few physical problems that would require an adult or a child to be granted an exemption. Experience since the wearing of front seat belts was made compulsory suggests that there are relatively few circumstances in which a physical deformity or physical problem makes an exemption certificate necessary or desirable. However, there are psychological problems and such problems probably arise more in relation to the rears of cars than to the fronts, because some cars have constricted rear areas. Some children who are belted in might feel uncomfortable. From my discussions with parents, I know that that is the case and that parents are concerned about it. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister will give the matter his careful consideration.
I am glad that the amendment that I tabled originally has been corrected and that the new amendment takes into account the amendment made in section 1(2) of the Road Traffic (Production of Documents) Act 1985, which amended section 33A of Road Traffic Act 1972 by changing from five to seven the number of days allowed for the presentation of a certificate at a police station. That seems a reasonable alteration. It also added new paragraphs (c) and (d) to subsection (3B), effectively saying to drivers that a certificate need not be produced if it is impracticable to do so.
There may be greater difficulties about the presentation of a child's certificate. Drivers would probably carry their certificate with the other driving documents. I am glad that the extra provision is incorporated in the Bill and that the amendment appears to be acceptable. I commend it to the House.

§ Mr. Day
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) is to be congratulated on the conduct of his arguments throughout this and earlier stages of the Bill, and especially on this matter. The Bill is currently modelled on section 33B of the Road Traffic Act 1972 which does not provide for the arrangements that he has described. I am certainly willing to accept the amendment and I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will do likewise. In view of the time, I hope that hon. Members will then allow us to move on.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
I welcome the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has picked up the distinction between the need for exemption certificates for rear seat travel and the absence of such a requirement for front seat travel. The promoter has rightly congratulated him on spotting that. I might briefly point out to those reporting our proceedings that to describe the Bill as having a rough passage would be an exaggeration as some of the amendments have been both sensible and acceptable. I trust that there will be an opportunity briefly to recognise that the efforts of all concerned have led to improvements in the Bill and I hope that it will make further progress today.

§ Mrs. Gorman
I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 6, column 3, leave out '2' and insert '1'.
The Bill provides for penalties to be inflicted on parents or other drivers who fail to ensure the use of restraints in the rear seats. The penalty is at level 2 of the standard scale, which is a fine of £100. In my view it is bad enough for parents to have to go through the trauma of being taken to court for what I regard as a very trivial matter, but it is even worse to fine them £100.
In real life, children may be naughty. They may undo their belts. Other people's chidren may be difficult to control. There may be a number of children in the car. We have been through all the factors which make a nonsense of the Bill, but as the purpose of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) is to get the Bill into law we must consider the level of fine.
I do not wish to delay the proceedings today, so I ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that he agrees that the level of penalties is inappropriate for an offence under this measure. No normal person would agree that parents should be punished to such an extent for such an offence. It is reasonable to caution them, to issue a warning and to explain the necessity for doing as the law requires, but the fine envisaged is entirely inappropriate. In my view, even £50 would be pretty hefty and I should prefer there to be no financial penalty. I hope that my hon. Friend will give an assurance that he will reconsider the matter and definitely drop the idea of level 2 penalties.

§ Mr. Day
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)
Has the hon. Lady finished? If so, I shall put the Question.

§ Mrs. Gorman
No, I am just giving way.

§ Mr. Day
I am willing to accept the amendment and gain some progress for the Bill. It is not a draconian measure; it is meant to encourage people. I am not seeking to make people penniless. So I accept the amendment and any assurance that the Minister gives.

§ Mrs. Gorman
After that assurance, I shall withdraw the amendment—

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
May I intervene?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We cannot do it that way. I must put the Question. The Question is—

§ Mr. Bottomley
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was allowing me to intervene in her speech.

§ Mrs. Gorman
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but I do not want the House to be confused. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was moving the amendment and I am not clear whether she has completed her speech.

§ Mrs. Gorman
No.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I beg the hon. Lady's pardon.

§ Mrs. Gorman
I give way to the Minister.

§ Mr. Bottomley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I suggest that it would be helpful if she did not withdraw her amendment. Then I could make a brief speech and the House could decide what to do.

§ Mrs. Gorman
I accept my hon. Friend's advice.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The Question is, That the amendment be made.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who is promoting the Bill, has said that he is willing to accept the amendment. The Government are not keen on it but are willing to accept it in the House, and, if we feel strongly about it, come back in another place. I emphasise that I am not trying to say that we shall hijack the amendment because there will not be so much pressure on time. The Government would want to consider the issue again.
The aim of the supporters of the Bill is not to throw major financial penalties at parents. It is for more parents to use the restraints that they have. That is what the law will be. Outside the law, the aim is for more parents to fit and use restraints. Any parent who decided not to put his child in a restraint, with the prospect of a £15 fine with a maximum of £100 on level 2 or £10 with a maximum of £50 on level 1 would be playing cash roulette with his child's life. I hope that even if the House accepts the level 1 penalty today, the message will go out that the reason for restraining one's child is not to save money, but to save the child.

§ Mr. Waller
I concede that my hon. Friend might be in a slight difficulty in that it seems that, if we have a level 1 penalty for this offence and a level 2 penalty for not wearing a seat belt in the front of the car, we are giving less 642 priority to the former. However, we should also take into account the fact that we are trying to encourage parents to do the right thing. There are difficulties with the enforcement of this legislation, which we do not face with legislation that is already on the statute book. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend carefully to consider keeping the amendment in the Bill.

§ Mr. Bottomley
I suggest that the House incorporates the amendment in the Bill now. We shall consider it seriously. We should not anticipate any future consideration.

§ Mr. Day
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has had a wide and detailed airing through all its stages. I hope that hon. Members will now allow it to proceed to the other place. If anyone has any further comments, I hope that they will be brief.
We have had an interesting and full debate today. I have already thanked my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) for his contributions to the debate. I also thank the Minister for his help so far. I hope that we can now proceed to give the Bill its Third Reading.
I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of people believe that the Bill is good and will save lives. It is not in any way intended to be draconian or to intimidate; it is meant to be an encouragement. My acceptance of amendment No. 7 on Report is a sign of my stand on that. People accept the logic behind the Bill, so it will be self-enforcing. The Minister has assured us that there will be widespread consultation and I know that he will return with regulations. I am pleased that we could agree that they would come under the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure and I thank the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for raising that issue.
If we pass this legislation many people will be pleased in this place and outside. I hope that the House will feel able to support it on its, I hope brief, Third Reading.

§ Mr. Forth
I wish to make it clear that I do not support the legislation but that I do not intend to foil it by procedural means. If we vote on Third Reading, I shall be happy because it will enable me to express my view correctly. I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily or to frustrate the Bill by any false means, but I wish to make a brief speech about my responses to it. Hon. Members may be puzzled that, despite the great support for it of which we are asssured, some hon. Members may be sufficiently eccentric to oppose it.
I came to the House believing, as I still do, that we legislate excessively in too many areas of human behaviour. My main objective is to restrain this propensity to legislate. I am not persuaded that if something is deemed to be good for many people we must necessarily devise a way to force behaviour in that direction. For that reason I am unhappy about a wide range of legislation from this House and even from my Government. Anyone who starts from that position takes much persuading that it is right to intervene, even in a case such as this.
I am not even persuaded when I am told that 90 per cent. of people, when asked, think that this legislation is a 643 good idea. If we ask people on the street whether they think that hanging or capital punishment is a good idea, 80 per cent. will say "Yes". I doubt whether all hon. Members who pray that sort of evidence in aid would want to follow their logic through and legislate every time something is supported by an opinion poll. A moment's thought will make hon. Members realise that that is not a legitimate basis on which to judge legislation or to intervene.

§ Mr. Sheerman
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but not only do the vast majority of people outside want the legislation, so do the vast majority of hon. Members. That is the difference.

§ Mr. Forth
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but he will recall that earlier today, when we had a closure motion, only 107 hon. Members voted in favour and four against. In other words, only 111 Members of Parliament out of 650 were sufficiently persuaded of the virtue of the legislation to be present. That is not an overwhelming display of support.

§ Mr. Sheerman
Today is Friday.

§ Mr. Forth
Friday is a parliamentary sitting day like any other. It has no lesser status than any other day. It is unacceptable for Members of Parliament to say to constituents, "I am sorry that you were not represented on Friday, but I had something else to do." This Bill, known to be a private Member's Bill, is as entitled as any other Bill to the vocal and physical support of Members of Parliament if they are to claim that it has widespread support. Let us lay that to rest and deal with the Bill strictly on its merits.
I think that my hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) have conceded that it has been shown that parts of the legislation raise question marks and doubts. Equally, they have been fair in accepting amendments, not least so that we can make progress and pass the legislation in one form or another. I repeat, I do not intend to frustrate it. They must concede that much work needs to be done and that many issues must be considered.
My hon. Friend the Minister has assured us that he will consult interested parties widely to establish whether the legislation can be made to work in an acceptable and reasonable manner. Knowing the Minister as I do, I am sure that he will do exactly that and embark positively on procedures to bring about what he said would be the benefits of this law in a reasonable and workable way and to achieve a balance between what is practical and what is not.
If the opportunity for a vote arises, I will vote against the Bill because I am not persuaded that it is right for the House to devise ever-increasing measures to dictate human behaviour. I believe—regrettably, fewer hon. Members seem to believe this—in the concept of parental responsibility. My Government talk constantly about Victorian values—whatever they were—the family and parental responsibilities. Opposition Members talk about the family and the role of parents. Why, if we respect the role of parents and the family relationship so much, do we still see fit to legislate to tell people what their responsibilities are and fine them if they do not exercise them? That is an odd way to square the concepts of the family and responsibility on the one hand with the role of the law on the other.
644 I retain, even after a few years in the House—it is more difficult after a few years in the European Parliament—the naive belief that people know best and should be left to make their own judgments. I retain even more strongly the belief that no hon. Member has a superiority or monopoly of knowledge. I am suspicious of the repeated attempts in the House to devise ways of telling everybody how to live their lives. For those reasons, I will oppose the Bill.

§ Mr. Waller
My view reflects that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth).
I hope that the House will have an opportunity to vote on Third Reading and give its view on it. I do not wish to frustrate the House's will that there should be a vote. I fully recognise that hon. Members would like a decision to be made.
There are aspects of the Bill about which I remain profoundly unhappy. This is not a sector where criminal sanctions should be used to persuade people of their responsibilities. The question of what is a reasonable excuse is a tricky one and we have tended to skirt round it. It is one to which we shall have to pay careful attention in the future.
I am anxious that the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which I took to be a commitment, has been cast to one side. He said that he could not conceive of any Government moving to the position of introducing compulsory wearing of seat belts where there is not compulsory fitting.
I hope that when he is considering the regulations the Minister will take account of his predecessor's important words and look at the context in which those unequivocal words were made. That shows the danger of saying one thing and leading the House to approve regulations that might be different to those that were imagined when the primary legislation was introduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) will deserve the congratulations of the House if his Bill receives its Third Reading today. I will do everything that I can to ensure that it works and saves lives.

§ Mrs. Gorman
I oppose the Bill in principle and practice. I oppose it in principle because I believe that far too much legislation from the House interferes with personal responsibility. As my hon. Friends have already said, there is a strong case for leaving parents to make decisions for themselves on how to raise, transport and generally take care of their children.
Much evidence is building up to show that if, through legislation, we take away the individual's responsibility to make decisions, there is a tendency for people to behave more irresponsibly. Evidence exists, especially with regard to accidents, to support that. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) referred earlier to such evidence and to the research work carried out by Dr. John Adams from London university.
If we introduce such legislation, we tell people that there is a law and the people do not need to worry any more because the Government have taken on the responsibility. That does not apply only to this Bill. I have referred to Cleveland where parents were brought to court for apparent breaches of their duties. We gave powers to 645 the legislature and to bureaucrats to intervene in family matters. That has led to an awful disaster for those parents in Cleveland.
When I mentioned Cleveland the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) blanched and appeared to want to intervene. We gave powers to authorities and that led to a situation in which innocent parents have been dragged into court and subjected to awful experiences with regard to their family matters. The House is largely responsible for that for our over-zealousness in trying to protect people from their own folly.

§ Ms. Short
I understand the hon. Lady's point. However, she must also understand that we have a problem, that we did not all understand until fairly recently, of serious sexual abuse of children, and we must try to intervene to protect children while having respect for the integrity of the family. Surely the hon. Lady accepts that. Does she accept that there should be intervention in those dreadful cases?

§ Mrs. Gorman
I entirely accept the hon. Lady's intervention. No one, except those engaged in such horrible practices, would approve of the kind of abuse that occurred in the Cleveland cases. However, there is evidence to suggest that when we give powers to authorities to intervene, those powers—with the best will in the world—cause intervention in family life and create great distress. I do not know whether granting those powers reduces the amount of child abuse. I wish that it did. That might be a reason for granting those powers. However, there is no evidence to support that wish.
More cases may be coming to light and I would support any measures through the voluntary associations to take a greater interest—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady is being led astray. She must confine herself to the Bill.

§ Mrs. Gorman
I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I will return to the specific issues in the Bill and explain why I find it objectionable. I have dealt with personal responsibility, but there is also a question of civil liberties.

§ Mrs. Wise
Has the hon. Lady considered the necessity and desirability of intervening in the case of babies, where parents have no excuse for not restraining them? Great problems could also arise with older children who might be defiant and deliberately cause trouble, and even create danger in the car by their unruly behaviour. Has the hon. Lady considered the differences in children of different ages?

§ Mrs. Gorman
I dealt with that point at some length when I made my earlier intervention. I am entirely in favour of persuading people to observe better standards of conduct. The Church, as well as the House, is involved in such activities, but there is a difference between persuading people to behave more sensibly in respect of their children and introducing an element of compulsion—of bringing innocent parents into court to be fined. It worries me that the Minister appears to be in favour of heavy rather than light fines for parents who are nursing babies.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
indicated dissent.

§ Mrs. Gorman
My hon. Friend the Minister is shaking his head, so perhaps I am wrong.
After we have passed legislation such as this, the House tends to think, "That's that. That law is on the statute book and everybody will behave better now." However, there have been numerous studies—many of them sponsored by the Department of Transport—indicating that there is a perverse effect arising out of road safety legislation. That is shown to be particularly so in studies which have examined the relationship between accidents and pedestrians and cyclists. The fact that cars are much safer than they were and that there are many more zebra crossings are among the factors taken into consideration.
Those studies suggest that the number of accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists is not falling as quickly as it should, because although the car driver may feel safer, he probably takes more risks. As a result, more pedestrians and cyclists are injured.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
indicated dissent.

§ Mrs. Gorman
My hon. Friend the Minister again shakes his head, but I have taken the trouble to read those reports. I referred earlier to one of them in particular, by Durbin and Harvey, which was sponsored by the Department of Transport. It alleges—and my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that the increase in the number of accidents involving pedestrians is 13 per cent. higher than the expected figure. It is 40 per cent. higher in the case of cyclists. Against that, the number of accidents involving drivers of heavy goods vehicles and of buses—we have heard a lot today about Ministers falling under buses—has declined.
There is a perfectly logical reason for that trend, if one takes human nature into account. The driver or passenger wearing a safety belt—whether in the front or back of the car—tends to be over-confident about his safety and is less attentive to what is happening on the road, particularly if he has a car full of people who are all wearing safety belts.
The car may be travelling along the motorway and all those inside it may be playing an "I spy" game. Indeed, there are activity books for children on car journeys which include "I spy" games. The driver's attention may be distracted as he looks out of the window to see something beginning with the letter S. Without realising it, he is endangering others, whether they are the passengers of the car in front or pedestrians. The vehicle ahead may get bashed from behind because of a driver's lack of attention.
There is a strong case to be made against seat belts in general, not just back seat belts, but people do not want to go back and re-examine legislation in that way. In the United States, there has been a good deal of examination of the effect of seat belts on accident levels. Crash helmets have also been investigated, but as we are not dealing with crash helmets today, I shall not say much about them.
When the perception of danger is lowered, other people may suffer as a result. That is the dilemma of all who seek to promote the betterment of behaviour through some form of legislation. There is strong evidence to suggest that there should be fewer regulations from the House so that individuals adopt a more responsible stance.
In his book "Risk and Freedom", John Adams says that, with a view to legislation reaching the House at some stage in the future, he has undertaken a study of parents who frequently transport their children in the back of the car. They said that they felt that they would drive much 647 more carefully—as if they were carrying eggs—if the children were not constrained by seat belts. We are likely to put on the statute book legislation that will withdraw that element of responsibility. Although my hon. Friend the Minister says that he wishes to save 60 lives, he has not given enough consideration—and we are in danger of doing the same—to how many children outside the car, on the street, may have accidents because of the Bill. For that reason, I shall not support the Bill.

§ Mr. Tony Lloyd
I shall comment briefly on the remarks of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and those of her fellow Right-wing libertarians. While the issue of risk compensation was dealt with adequately on Second Reading—the hon. Lady may wish to look at the record—if she is seriously concerned about risks to non-motor car users she should press the Government, who I hope would be prepared to accept the suggestion, to increase measures that improve pedestrian safety and lessen the risk of accidents of all kinds, rather than blocking a measure that will of itself save lives.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) on piloting the Bill through. I also say, in fairness, that while the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on occasion entered into a form of debate with me—although not always to the edification of either of us—he has, in the final analysis, played a reasonably responsible role. Certainly, his amendment has assisted the Bill. I welcome the Bill's Third Reading.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
Like the official Opposition, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) on what he has achieved. I also acknowledge the help of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and its advisers.
More than 600 children are killed and over 7,000 injured each year while travelling unrestrained in the backs of cars. There is increasing awareness of the value of wearing seat belts in the rear of cars as well as in the front. Since the Bill was first debated in the House at the beginning of February, sales of seat belts and child restraints have soared. One leading manufacturer reports sales up by over 40 per cent. That demonstrates the parental support for what the Bill aims to do.
The "That's Life" campaign in 1986 led the way by highlighting just how vulnerable our children are when travelling unrestrained. It is irresponsible of us as drivers to expose them to an unnecessary level of risk. More and more people are having rear restraints fitted to older cars, and all new cars must now have them fitted, anyway. The Bill proposes that where such restraints exist they should, where practicable, be used by child passengers.
There are many issues still to be resolved in deciding how the law should apply in practice. The enabling regulations, which will require the approval of both Houses of Parliament, will need to accommodate a wide range of circumstances—the large family, the school run and so on. The Bill requires only that restraints that are fitted should be used and not that all children in the rear of cars be restrained. A large group would not be prohibited from travelling together.
When drafting the regulations and considering the timing of their introduction, we shall, as the law requires, 648 consult widely. In particular we shall need to discuss with the police, who wholeheartedly support the Bill in principle, with family organisations and other interests, including taxi interests, the enforcement implications. We shall proceed step by step.
The powers that the Bill seeks to introduce are the same as those we already have in respect of adults travelling in the rear of cars. We have not used those powers and we have no plans to do so. I believe that timing is crucial if we are to achieve a high level of compliance. One of the reasons why Britain has the highest front seat belt wearing rate in the world is that the law was in tune with the climate of opinion that existed at that time. For the time being, we want to continue to do everything possible to encourage the voluntary use of rear restraints by adults.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) raised the issue of the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruschcliffe (Mr. Clarke). What we are proposing is less than that envisaged by my right hon. and learned Friend. If we began to say that all cars must have rear seat belts fitted, we would be going as far as my right hon. and learned Friend was suggesting. We are going less far. We could be criticised for that, but not in the way offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley.
There is growing body of public opinion that we should move towards the obligatory use of rear restraints for children. The Bill reflects that shift. No responsible parent would want to wait for the law before fitting and using child restraints.

Division No. 305]	[2.22 pm
AYES
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Allen, Graham	Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Alton, David	Fyfe, Maria
Amess, David	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Gordon, Mildred
Atkinson, David	Gould, Bryan
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Hampson, Dr Keith
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Barron, Kevin	Hayes, Jerry
Beckett, Margaret	Haynes, Frank
Beggs, Roy	Henderson, Doug
Bendall, Vivian	Hood, Jimmy
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Bottomley, Peter	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Bowis, John	Kennedy, Charles
Bradley, Keith	Knapman, Roger
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Knowles, Michael
Caborn, Richard	Knox, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Lamond, James
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)	Latham, Michael
Carrington, Matthew	Lightbown, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Cohen, Harry	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Corbyn, Jeremy	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Couchman, James	McNamara, Kevin
Cryer, Bob	Madden, Max
Darling, Alistair	Marek, Dr John
Day, Stephen	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Devlin, Tim	Meale, Alan
Doran, Frank	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Dover, Den	Moate, Roger
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Durant, Tony	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)	Pendry, Tom
Fearn, Ronald	Pike, Peter L.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Rhodes James, Robert

Richardson, Jo	Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Ruddock, Joan	Wall, Pat
Shaw, David (Dover)	Wailey, Joan
Shersby, Michael	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Short, Clare	Wigley, Dafydd
Skinner, Dennis	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)	Wray, Jimmy
Stern, Michael
Strang, Gavin	Tellers for the Ayes:
Thorne, Neil	Mr. Barry Sheerman and
Waddington, Rt Hon David	Mr. James Cran.
NOES
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Widdecombe, Ann
Kilfedder, James
Miller, Hal	Tellers for the Noes:
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)	Mr. Eric Forth and
Waller, Gary	Mrs. Teresa Gorman.