HL Deb 11 June 1990 vol 520 cc77-97

7.24 p.m.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

From a personal point of view, I thank the honourable Member for Ealing, North, Mr. Harry Greenway, for asking me to take the Bill through your Lordships' House. Over 30 years ago I broke my back riding in a point-to-point race. When racing, even 30 years ago, we all had to wear skull caps. Mine was specially made because I have a rather large head. Not only did I break my back; I had numerous other injuries. I was concussed and had a suspected head injury. I have always given thanks for the protection of my skull cap.

On many occasions I have visited hospital accident departments and neuro-surgical units. It is a tragedy to see so many young people there. Only last week I received a letter from a young woman who had had a riding accident some years ago in which she sustained a head injury. I quote a few words from her letter: I was found to have left hemiplegia after being unconscious for 6/8 weeks. I am just about going out of my mind with trauma and frustration". This is 10 years after the accident.

I have had many telephone calls from people who are worried that this Bill might be delayed.

The Bill makes it an offence for a variety of categories of adults to cause or permit a child to ride a horse on the road without wearing protective headgear. I have already been lobbied by a number of people with specific experience which demonstrates how a hard hat could have prevented serious injury or death. I am sure that many of us know of such accidents. Without doubt children wearing proper head protection are safer than those who do not. Indeed, in the debate on compulsory rear seatbelts for children in cars the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said specifically that to compel people riding horses to wear crash helmets would also save lives.

It is estimated that in Britain 3½ million people regularly ride horses. It is difficult to know how many of them suffer accidents on roads which result in injuries that require medical attention because information is not collected comprehensively. However, a study in the West Midlands in 1988 concluded that there are about 1,460 horse rider casualties a year on the highway requiring medical attention. Up to half of those are children. Approximately a third of all rider injuries are to the head.

Wearing a safety helmet is one of the simplest ways of ensuring one's safety when riding. It is particularly important that they are worn when riding on the road because accidents to riders in those circumstances are more likely to be severe than accidents in the field. Studies by the British Horse Society suggest that helmet wearing rates among children are possible up to 80 per cent. However, there remain the 20 per cent. who do not wear helmets and the possibility that some of the helmets in use are not to an appropriate standard or are inappropriately fitted, severely limiting protection.

Wearing an appropriate helmet may not prevent death—a rider may suffer multiple injuries—but helmets reduce the severity of head injuries and prevent minor injuries. Even a seemingly small bump to the head may cause complications. Recovery from serious head injury may be a long and difficult process for both the patient and his or her family and friends. Indeed, recovery may never be complete. For example, a head injury can lead to a fundamental change in personality.

The Bill makes it an offence for adults who are capable of stopping a child from doing so causing or permitting a child to ride a horse without wearing protective headgear. The most obvious category of adult is the parent or guardian. The Bill also covers owners of horses, people in possession of a horse and employers. It is illegal to employ a child under the age of 13, but many 13 year-olds, in particular girls, will work in stables at weekends for the opportunity of a free ride.

The Bill sets the penalty for the offence at level 1 on the standard scale—£50. This is not a large amount but it is to be hoped that prosecutions will in any case be extremely rare. Experience from similar legislation, such as that concerning seat belts or motor cycle helmets, shows that when a law is made which is so obviously sensible, road users will obey it without enforcement.

Clause 2 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing exemptions. Those exemptions may include certain classes of children on, for example, religious grounds or exclude the riding of horses in any particular circumstances. At this stage it is difficult to see what exemptions might be made, but the clause as drafted will allow them to be included if suitable cases are made in consultation.

The regulations will define protective headgear and will also require that the headgear is properly worn on the head and properly fastened.

Clause 3 defines "horse", "regulations" and "road". During the Report stage in another place, the definition of "road" was amended. It was accepted at the time that the definition as amended may be inadequately drafted and that is unfortunately the case. I shall therefore move an amendment at Committee stage to ensure that the definitions have the same intent as at present but are legally workable. Clause 4 allows the legislation to be extended to Northern Ireland by an Order in Council, subject to the negative resolution procedure. Clause 5 states that the Act shall come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.

The Bill is limited to riding on roads. That does not mean that helmets are not necessary when riding off the road. They are vital pieces of equipment whenever riding a horse. However, we must be realistic when making legislation. Enforcement of a law requiring helmets to be worn at all times would also mean that the police would have to be given a power of entry—something which I am sure we would regard as unacceptable. That does not mean that the Bill will have an impact only on horse riding on the road. Children who are required to wear helmets when young are more likely to continue to wear them as they grow older. Again, if they wear helmets on the road, they will be more likely to wear them off the road.

Legislation such as this is sometimes attacked as trying to create a nanny state. I understand the reasoning behind the argument that people have a right to make a choice about protecting themselves. However, such an argument does not apply to children. Adults are able to make a reasoned decison whether to wear protective headgear. Children may not. They need to be protected so that they reach adulthood and are able to make up their own minds. Responsible parents already ensure that their children wear protective headgear. The Bill addresses the irresponsible minority who do not. Responsible parents also have a right to expect that other adults exercise the same duty of care.

At present, action can be taken only after an accident. Compensation is a poor substitute for protection. This is such an easy wrong to put right. Even though the numbers are not great, there should be no deaths or serious injuries due to the lack of appropriate protective headgear. If only one child is protected to live a healthy adult life, the Bill is worth while. A vote against it is a vote against the protection of children. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Masham of Ilton.)

7.35 p.m.

Lord Monson rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out all the words after ("that") and to insert ("this House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because the Bill would override parental judgment and authority; would unnecessarily create yet another criminal offence; and would pave the way for further erosions of individual freedom and choice in the name of safety").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it goes without saying that everyone who takes part in a debate on any controversial subject in this House, whatever side he or she happens to be on, means well. There are few people more well-meaning than my noble friend Lady Masham, who introduced the Bill with exceptional clarity, which is an enormous help to us all.

In addition, my noble friend is also notably kind hearted. I am sure that it is this, in conjunction with her very unhappy experience of 30 years ago, that has prompted her to take up this Private Member's Bill which originated in another place where surprisingly—this may astonish noble Lords—it went through virtually on the nod at Second Reading with no debate whatever. Given the adverse future implications for personal freedom inherent in the Bill and given that, if it succeeds, we shall be the only country in the world with such a measure on the statute book, that lack of involvement and interest in another place—a few intrepid souls apart—is somewhat alarming. However, it looks as though we may make up for it this evening, and it appears that my noble friend Lady Masham has mobilised a formidable array of talent to support her case.

We all greatly mourn the untimely death of our late noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne. I have an additional, possibly selfish, reason for regretting that he is no longer with us as this was just the kind of legislation which infuriated him. He would have been able to lay into it far more effectively than I am capable of doing.

It so happens that I have just finished rereading the marvellous account by the distinguished travel writer, Mr. Eric Newby, of his voyage around the world in 1938 and 1939 at the age of 18 in a cargo-carrying sailing clipper as the lowest of the low—an apprentice seaman. The spartan living conditions, the extremely primitive sanitation, the disgusting food, the almost total absence of safety equipment or medical facilities, the bullying—both physical and verbal—and the extremely strict discipline would, if applied today to a terrorist murderer serving life imprisonment, a seaman or an army recruit, cause 100 apoplectic MPs to rise to their feet in indignation. Yet that rough, tough treatment does not seem to have done any permanent harm to Mr. Newby, who went on to achieve a magnificent war record and successful series of careers. It could be argued that, if he had not been knocked about so much just before the outbreak of World War II, he might not have come through that war so successfully, if at all.

It is also worth pointing out that, if the old newspapers of the 1930s are an accurate guide, people took things like road accidents much more in their stride, notwithstanding that they were more frequent than they are nowadays, both absolutely and in proportion to the number of cars on the road. The general attitude seemed to be that "accidents will happen". I fully accept that we may regard our grandparents' generation as excessively callous. There may be some truth in that; but they in return would regard our generation as excessively "windy", to use the jargon of that time. Surely there can be some happy medium in which the voluntary use of reasonable safety measures can be vigorously encouraged, reinforced perhaps by differential insurance premiums and measures of that nature, without bringing in the heavy hand of the law to make common sense compulsory, to extirpate error. It is only through trial and error—particularly error—that people learn to become responsible. I should say, in parenthesis, that I am fully in favour of strict employers' liability legislation, because an employee is not a free agent and is not master of his or her own destiny. That is a totally different matter.

This Administration have constantly spoken of diminishing the power of the state and of restoring more power over their lives to individuals and families. The Bill goes in the opposite direction, by overriding, as my amendment states, parental authority and judgment. The gentleman or lady in Whitehall or Westminster does not always know best and, even when he or she is largely right, he or she can only lay down blanket rules which are not capable of taking account of special circumstances. For example, intelligent parents—not stupid ones—may be perfectly well aware that what is technically classified as a highway is in their case a little-used road ending in a cul-de-sac or an unmade farm road over which no more than half a dozen tractors or four-wheel drive vehicles travel in any 24-hour period. I know several roads like that near me. Such a road is obviously perfectly safe for riders despite being a highway in the purely technical sense. In contrast, the parents may be equally aware that another stretch of road is so narrow and so busy that no rider should go anywhere near it unless dismounted and leading the horse—and perhaps not even then.

But if this Bill becomes law, the child will now be able to protest, "The Government say that it is perfectly all right for me to ride along there provided that I wear a hard hat". Incidentally, I should say that the parent or guardian is also in a better position than the Government to know whether the horse or pony in question is docile and used to traffic or high spirited and likely to shy at every single noise or object.

I said that this Bill will override parental authority. Because the Bill catches people up to the age of 14, it will also undermine it, in so far as teenagers—who are chronically rebellious and normally will be riding out alone (teenagers do not normally ride with their parents)—will in practice do whatever they want knowing that it will be their parents and not they who will end up in court, always assuming that the police officer who spotted the offence has some magical means of ascertaining the age of the teenager and gas the technical expertise to know whether or not a helmet is properly fitted.

More importantly, this Bill will also create yet another criminal offence. Why do I use the qualification "yet another"? It is because, as I pointed out in our debate last month on civil liberties, since 3rd May 1979 between 800 and 900 new offences have been created by this Government, of which about 200 provide for the possibility of imprisonment as well as the possibility of a fine. In contrast, only about half a dozen activities have been decriminalised. Surely it is time to put a brake on the creation of new offences except when they are vitally necessary. The police have their hands quite full enough with terrorists, rapists, muggers, burglars, and so on.

Why not first of all try persuasion by means of a propaganda campaign? It will not cost any more, as, even if the Bill becomes law in whatever form, there will have to be a publicity campaign anyway to make riders aware of the new restrictions imposed by the Bill. It cannot be repeated often enough that we would be the only country in the world with a law of this kind. Even Sweden, that paragon of compulsory social democratic virtue, has no such law. Indeed, as noble Lords will know, in most Continental countries even moped riders—riders of motor cycles of 50 cc or less—are exempted from having to wear crash helmets. In most Continental countries that includes riders in their early teens.

Finally, there exists the danger—indeed, the strong probability—that the passage of this Bill would pave the way for further erosions of freedom and choice in the name of safety. At the moment parents are perfectly at liberty to thumb their nose, as it were, at the medical profession. They can refuse to have their children vaccinated against, for example, whooping cough. In other words, in that particular sphere of health and safety the parents' judgment is paramount, however mistaken the experts may consider that judgment to be.

How much longer will parents be able to retain that right after this Bill becomes law, given that so many more children are affected by failure to vaccinate than are affected by riding accidents? Will school boxing be banned, as opposed to merely being discouraged? Will school rugby be banned, given that injuries in that sport are at least as numerous as equestrian injuries? How much longer will children be able to continue to ride pedal cycles without helmets, given that accidents on bicycles are vastly more frequent than riding accidents?

I cannot believe that the zealous guardians of our well-being will confine themselves to regulating children. As an occasional cyclist I do not want to be forced into a helmet any more than I do as an occasional horseman. I have exercised polo ponies on occasion but have never played polo. I have not ridden competitively nor have I ever wanted to do so: I fully accept that if one is competing it is a very different matter. There are certain rules and regulations which have to be obeyed, as in any club. But like tens of thousands of people who are non-competitors I ride for fun, and to relax. In my view, in order to relax one needs to be unencumbered and not helmeted like an American footballer. In the immortal words of Cole Porter: I like the free, fresh wind in my hair; life without care.

While I am on that tack, perhaps I may say how good it was to see the splendid lady who successfully appealed against the officious motor cycle policeman in Richmond Park who had accused her of galloping at 30 miles an hour uphill, cantering away for the benefit of the press photographers with her hair streaming out behind her and not a hat in sight. As is well known—there is no secret about it—the more senior members of the Royal Family do not wear hard hats; nor do many mounted policemen, although by definition mounted police officers spend most of their time riding on tarmac; nor do most cavalry officers on ceremonial duties, where the same thing applies.

But, it will be argued, this Bill applies only to those under 14. Indeed, but it will surely feed the appetite of those who aspire to extend it to adults. I do not deny for one moment that it is a good thing for children to wear hard hats when riding on roads, though it certainly will not automatically save them from the consequences arising from irresponsible drivers of cars, lorries or motor cycles. It will merely reduce the accident rate slightly.

Let us first try persuasion, by making the statistics known to parents who have no particular reason to be aware of the statistics at the moment, except those who are deeply involved in the riding world, and by treating parents as the adults that they are. Let us try that first before introducing yet another restrictive albeit almost unenforceable criminal offence, one which is without precedent in the history of Europe. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out all the words after ("that") and to insert ("this House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because the Bill would override parental judgment and authority; would unnecessarily create yet another criminal offence; and would pave the way for further erosions of individual freedom and choice in the name of safety"). —(Lord Monson.)

7.45 p.m.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Masham on her lucid explanation of the Bill that is before us this evening. I, as well as RoSPA, which has helped me with some figures for my speech, warmly welcome the Bill. The same cannot be said about the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, which to my mind is, with respect, fundamentally irrelevant.

Leisure accident surveillance system data recently made available from the DTI estimate that 30,000 people a year receive medical treatment in accident and emergency units for injuries received from horses, ponies and donkeys. There are on average five fatalities per year from horse riding accidents. The majority of the victims in both fatal and non-fatal accidents are girls in the age bracket of 10 to 14 years.

In a paper on riding accidents presented as far back as 1985 by the Child Accident Prevention Trust it was said that 20 per cent. of accidents occurred on roads and only 5 per cent. on bridle paths. It was interesting to note that the types of injuries sustained were similar in nature to motor cycle injuries. A neuro-surgeon at Nottingham showed that the incidence of falls from riding is one per 350 hours of riding whereas from motor cycling it is one per 7,000 hours of riding. Surely that is a reflection on the improved steering and braking system of a motor cycle compared with that of a horse. Motor cyclists have to wear a hat, so it stands to reason that a horse rider who is younger than a motor cyclist should also wear one.

It is vitally important to protect the vulnerable and vital parts of the body from injury. Besides damaging the brain, head injuries can cause an increase in the occurrence of epilepsy. I shall return to that matter later. However, noble Lords may be interested to know that if one has suffered from epilepsy one is banned from driving until one has had a period of three years in which one has not had a fit.

Just over a year ago there was a report in the Daily Telegraph headed: "Hard hat law urged to cut riding injuries". The Medical Commission on Riding Accident Prevention said that it was so concerned by the rising level of injuries that it wanted legislation to make it compulsory for children to wear well fitting and securely fastened riding hats. At last that is about to happen.

As the noble Baroness said, a young person between 14 and 17 years of age is more able to make a balanced judgment on the need to wear protective headgear when riding a horse than a child of 14 who therefore needs to be protected by those adults responsible for him or her. There is no doubt that falling off a horse and landing on one's head on a road or hard surface can cause the most horrendous results, sometimes resulting in the death of a young child. The amendment of the noble Lord states that the Bill would override parental judgment and authority. I suggest that such judgment to protect one's child out riding is far more preferable than what might happen if the child were not wearing a hat.

The amendment continues that it would, unnecessarily create yet another criminal offence. I suggest that it is a criminal offence if a parent lets a child ride without a hat and have an accident which results in permanent brain damage and subsequent loss of life.

Lastly, the amendment refers to, further erosions of individual freedom and choice in the name of safety". Let me tell your Lordships what I went through when my daughter came off her horse 12 years ago. Because the hat she was wearing was ill-fitting and substandard, it came off before she hit the ground, head first. For many days and nights with a cracked skull she lay in a hospital bed with her mother or me beside her for 24 hours a day while she was in a concussed state not knowing who or where she was or what had happened. Thank God after many weeks she recovered, only later to have epilepsy as the doctors had said she would.

Is that a further erosion of individual freedom and choice in the name of safety? No, my Lords. Freedom of choice in the name of safety is to let your child live as long as possible, to enjoy life and to do what all young people wish to do safely without going through the agonising time that she and we did, day in day out, for what seemed a lifetime. That is why I believe that the amendment is fundamentally irrelevant.

Wearing a hard hat will reduce pain, suffering and disability. It will save NHS spending on accidents and release money and beds for other medical services. It will create a safer situation for all riders.

Unlike Noel Coward, who advised Mrs. Worthington not to put her daughter on the stage, I should be happy to advise any Mrs. Worthington to put her daughter on a horse so long as the basic ground rules for safety were observed: in other words, that one wears a BSI hat. I wish the Bill well and hope that the House will reject the amendment out of hand.

7.55 p.m.

Lord Willoughby de Broke

My Lords, I speak in support of the Bill only because I was under the impression that it was already compulsory for children to wear safety helmets when riding on a public highway.

It astonishes me that, while it is against the law to ride a moped or motor bike without a crash helmet and while we accept the need for seat belts in motor cars, we allow young children to ride their ponies on a public road without requiring them to wear any form of safety hat or helmet. We should not be deterred by being the only country in the world to pass this law. After all, we are the only country in the world with a House of Lords.

As my noble friend Lord Brougham has said, statistically riding is up to 20 times more dangerous than motor cycling. That has been recognised by those concerned with the administration of racing, polo and eventing. That makes it all the more extraordinary that no one had addressed the dangers to those most at risk; namely, young children on roads.

Let me briefly set the scene. A young boy or girl, by definition inexperienced, possibly on a temperamental pony given by parents who may well have had no experience of the dangers involved and are thus not aware of what could happen to their child, is currently allowed to operate like any other road user save that he or she is untaxed, unlicensed, unrestricted, untested and untrammeled by the safety regulations which apply to other road users. Add the hazards of juggernauts, fast buses, speeding traffic, thoughtless drivers and the natural animal fear of the mechanical and we have a recipe for disaster simply waiting to happen.

I recently had the opportunity to talk to one of the country's leading consultant neurosurgeons, Mr. John Firth, from University Hospital, Nottingham. He has been closely associated with the design of suitable safety helmets for riders. His opinion, to which I believe the House should give due weight, is that the current performance of helmets constructed to BS4472 means that the vast majority of head injuries are now unnecessary and unacceptable.

When one adds up the costs of these avoidable accidents, the literally vital importance of the Bill is brought home. There is the physical and emotional cost of brain damage in terms of blighted lives and blighted hopes, the strain on parents who have to bring up a brain damaged child and the financial cost to the National Health Service of these accidents which are unnecessary. There is also the knock-on effect of postponing other neurosurgery to deal with emergencies caused by the lack of a simple safety helmet. To prevent that, with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is not wimpish.

Passing the Bill into law will also correct the anomalous position that arises when children sent to a riding school see their instructors wearing suitable safety headgear as required by the Health and Safety at Work Act, yet they, the pupils, are not similarly protected by the law as it now stands.

I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that there is generally too much legislation. I hope to be able to support him on occasions in repelling the advance of the nanny state on other fronts. However, in this case I believe that the amendment is misconceived. I do not believe that parents should have the freedom of sending their son or daughter onto a public highway with no protection for the reasons that I have outlined. The so-called freedom to do so is not freedom but ignorance and irresponsibility. Far from undermining parental authority I feel that most parents would welcome the Bill as reinforcing it.

An Arab proverb states that, The grave yawns for the horseman". The Bill will go a long way towards closing the mouth of that grave. I support the Bill and will vote against the amendment.

7.58 p.m.

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo

My Lords, I should like to join others in congratulating Mr. Greenway on bringing the Bill forward in another place and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, on introducing it in this Chamber.

I must admit that until five years ago a cloth cap on my head was good enough for me. Some might say that if I fell on my head it would improve it, but I have not done so yet and I now wear proper protective headgear. Anyone who has witnessed a young person riding a runaway pony along a road will agree that it is a terrifying sight. When it comes to the crunch one realises how important a riding hat or helmet is to the safety of the child.

The 1973 Bill related to wearing helmets on motor bicycles. Ten years later, in 1983, legislation made it compulsory to wear seat belts in the front seats of cars. Both laws are now generally complied with. Why? It is because everyone sees the need for prudence and sensible protection. People generally conform through habit. Publicity and general awareness have mounted rapidly. Few children now ride hatless but, sadly, as noble Lords may have noticed, a minority are still content to ride along a main arterial road with nothing on their heads. How unwise those children are. Some noble Lords may have seen the press cutting of the young lady who was posing for the press in Hyde Park. She galloped past the cameras with nothing on her head. What a stupid lady she was.

The Jockey Club, the British Horse Society and many other riding organisations have been extremely active in promoting the use of protective headgear and now generally insist on it within their own rules. The Jockey Club has figures to show that by wearing a British Standard Kite-marked helmet the head injury rate from falling off a horse can be cut from 62 per cent. to 15.2 per cent. It insists that all riders, stable staff and, indeed, its trainers wear protective head gear. It calculates that over the past 10 years there have been over 600,000 occasions when the rider has been wearing a helmet and only three head injury fatalities.

We have heard a great number of statistics, but one wonders how many people actually ride. The noble Baroness said that the number is 3½ million; the British Horse Society says that it is 1½ million. It may be more; it could be less.

I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in its memorandum TA57/87 dated January 1989 the Department of Transport recognises that there are no reliable statistics concerning accidents on the roads. The memorandum goes on to state that there is some evidence to indicate that the number of accidents involving horses is increasing and that the potential number of accidents may further increase. I believe that the majority of accidents of all kinds occur in stable yards, stables, maneges and often out in the fields as well as on the roads. The majority of road accidents involve motorised vehicles travelling at speed. On occasions they involve animals such as dogs which run out under the horse's feet. Sometimes they are due to the road surfaces, which are becoming less suitable for riding.

While I appreciate the feeling expressed in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I, like other noble Lords, cannot agree with it and find it totally irrelevant. I do not see how the amendment will help to make riding safer in the future; and that must be the welcome aim of the Bill. We hope that the Bill will reduce the number of accidents to those under the age of 14 years. It will also act as a general reminder in the future. We hope too that those under the age of 14 and affected by the Bill will have grown into the habit of wearing proper headgear when they become adults and cease to be covered by it. I hope that in due course the age limit will be raised to 18 years or removed completely. However, I appreciate the reason why the Bill is so framed at the present time.

Clause 1 deals with protective headgear and the way in which it should be worn. Headgear has been produced to a specification commercially convenient to the trade. In general previously written specifications have been ignored. At present the accepted helmets are the jockey skull cap, British Standard 4472, which it is accepted is probably as good as you can get. But even that skull cap when loosely worn on the back of the head is a neck-breaker.

Most riding clubs use British Standard 6473 and many variations which go under the wording "tested to British Standard 4472 standard" but they are of mixed merit and design. The helmets come in four sizes—0, 1, 2 and 3—but some manufacturers do not produce size 0, which, with size 1, covers the age group affected by the Bill. It is important to obtain the proper size so that the hat fits securely; otherwise the result will be positively dangerous.

We hope that the Bill will have a deterrent effect and will not prove difficult to enforce. However, I can foresee circumstances in which an unqualified and unpaid guide or instructor may get children to change ponies at a rally, trek or cross-country ride and a child may fall wearing an ill-fitting hat. That is not an uncommon occurrence. I am anxious to know where the responsibility will lie in such cases. Will it lie with the parent or with the willing helper?

Sadly the Bill falls short in that it applies only to those under the age of 14 years. The level of fines may be a little too low and the Bill will be difficult to enforce because it is limited to roads. However, I support the Bill because if children under 14 years old must wear protective headgear when riding on the roads they will continue to do so after that age. I sincerely believe that the Bill is a little too late and too narrow. However, I hope that it will create a greater general awareness and that all those who ride horses will wear the proper headgear at all times.

8.4 p.m.

Lord Auckland

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, has addressed your Lordships on many occasions. However, I submit that she has seldom raised a more important matter. I am an honorary vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, although I have not consulted it about the Bill. I rode during the war years, but not successfully, and have not ridden since. My eldest daughter rode for a number of years before having a family. She has not ridden since but was then a good rider and always wore headgear.

Of course we have too much legislation and too many restrictions. However, it is important to remember that we are discussing children under the age of 14 years. Parents are not always vigilant, particularly when such children go riding. My wife and I live two miles from Epsom race course where a number of riders, some quite young, go out on busy roads. There have been some horrendous road accidents, mostly involving people over the age of 14. However, a child under that age could be riding a horse which bolted because of a car coming the other way or for some other reason. I cannot believe that the Bill is an infringement on the liberty of the subject.

Sweden has been mentioned. I have been to Sweden and it has a population of four million. This country has a population of 60 million. Probably there are as many people riding in this country—not all of them youngsters—as there are in the population of Sweden. I believe that the argument put forward in that regard is vacuous.

Most important are our hospitals. I am president of the friends of our local hospital in Surrey. It has a casualty department although I do not know how many casualties result from horse riding. The city of Nottingham has been mentioned, and is where our eldest daughter lives. The university hospital has a first-class casualty department and no doubt those involved in horse riding accidents go there. Your Lordships are currently discussing the health service Bill. In doing so we have discussed ways of preventing more people from attending casualty departments because they are so over-worked. I believe that the Bill will contribute a great deal towards fewer people, although perhaps only fractionally, attending casualty departments.

There is nothing sadder than a young child being seriously injured or worse as the result of an accident which could have been prevented. The helmets worn should be of a certain British standard and I hope that the Bill will provide for that. Considering the number of accidents involving young people in this country, some of them avoidable, I believe that the Bill will go a long way towards preventing more tragedies.

8.9 p.m.

Viscount Mills

My Lords, I wish to add some brief comments which emphasise and support many of those already made this evening. It has been proposed that the Bill should be declined a Second Reading because it would pave the way for further erosions of individual freedom and choice in the name of safety.

However, I must disagree with that point of view. What greater loss of freedom is there than that of loss of life or severe disablement? As we have heard, horse riding is one of the most dangerous sports but, nevertheless, it continues to grow in popularity.

When a rider is thrown or falls forward from a horse, the part of the body most likely to hit the ground first is the head. The head is the most vulnerable part of the body and without proper protection the skull is more likely to be fractured which could result in death, paralysis or brain damage.

I support this Bill. If anything, I would support legislation which extended not only to children but to riders of all ages who take their horses onto roads. I too find it illogical that we should require adults who ride motorcycles to wear safety helmets and not have the same requirement for horse riders. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, I believe that that issue needs to be addressed.

It is accepted by all the major societies responsible for the administration of equestrian sports that safety is of paramount importance. For all competitive events and examinations run by the British Showjumping Association and the British Horse Society, which includes the Pony Club, it is mandatory that protective headgear is worn. The protection afforded to the rider is well recognised by those organisations and the requirement to do so is strictly enforced.

I have talked to a number of young riders including my 13 year-old niece who spends every moment of her time riding. She is one of the typical 13 year-olds mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. All those young riders strongly supported the proposed legislation. However, there will be other young riders whose inexperience, or in some cases foolhardiness, may result in a failure to appreciate the benefits of wearing protective headgear. It is not just children who are foolhardy. An irresponsible adult may fail to safeguard not only himself but also the inexperienced child from the sort of accidents which I have already described and whose consequences this legislation seeks to prevent.

Lastly, I raise the point that it is all very well to consider personal freedom, but what about responsibility? In the case of a riding accident, failure to wear protective headgear could result in a death or injury which might have been avoided. The responsibility must lie with the adult in charge at the time, and the consequences would impinge not only on the freedom of the injured person but on their relatives and on society. It has not been overlooked that those responsible for treating the victims of accidents which might have been avoided deeply regret the deployment of hard-pressed staff and scarce facilites which are much needed by other patients.

I believe that this legislation is rooted in common sense, and that it will help to ensure that a responsible attitude is taken by adults on behalf of children involved in equestrian activities. I am very happy to support the Bill.

8.13 p.m.

Viscount Mountgarret

My Lords, I wish to say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that his argument about the freedom of the individual perhaps goes too far on this occasion. He will remember very well how we joined forces over the legislation requiring the wearing of seatbelts. We used that same argument. I must say that while I entirely support the idea of the freedom of the individual, I have become a total convert to legislation which requires a sensible provision. That is without doubt of the greatest benefit. The result of the seatbelts Bill is that more and more people voluntarily wear them. The Wildlife and Countryside Act requires people to keep their dogs under control by putting them on leads. I have found from my own experience that more and more people who walk across my estate at home keep their dogs on a lead where before the passing of that legislation, they did not do so.

A Bill like this, which makes it mandatory for young people to wear protective headgear, should not be reacted against because it is not possible to enforce, which is the argument of some. The point is that it demonstrates to many people the sense of that provision and they will think twice before allowing young children to go out and about without protective headgear.

The knock-on effect of this legislation will not be policemen hiding under hedgerows trying to find people riding without protective headgear. However, if an accident occurs, then the adult responsible could find himself liable as regards insurance. I believe that that point would be taken on board. People think far more carefully when a law exists which requires that something must be done. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will bear that in mind.

No noble Lord has yet referred to anything particular in the Bill. Clause 1 refers to the wearing of protective headgear on the highway. I understand the reasons for that. However, surely there is just as much if not more danger through the failure to wear protective headgear in the countryside. A runaway pony trying to take a jump or which has been frightened by something which causes the child to fall off and hit his head on a stone is just as likely, if not more so, to happen in the countryside than on the highway. If we are to pass legislation of this nature, I do not see why it should not be desirable to extend it to apply every time the child rides a pony. That would not be very difficult and I do not believe that that is very objectionable.

I have a good deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Mills, who asked why this legislation applies only to children under the age of 14 because it is common sense legislation. I am possessed of remarkably little common sense and have spent all my riding time wearing a top hat which is a useless piece of equipment to defend one's head. I should have worn a proper hard hat considering the number of times I came off. It is unfortunate for your Lordships' House that I am still here! I believe it is desirable for everybody to wear proper protective headgear. I support my noble friend, if that is not unparliamentary language as I have had the privilege of being her friend for a great number of years, in this Bill.

8.19 p.m.

Lord Manton

My Lords, I suspect that I have fallen from a horse onto my head more often than any other noble Lord with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Oaksey, who does not appear to be here this evening.

I strongly oppose the amendment. Several friends of mine in the past have been either killed or very seriously injured because they were not wearing protective headgear. All the major British horse societies now insist on a BSI-approved helmet. That headgear became compulsory over 10 years ago in the world of racing. How much more dangerous is it for young people on public roads? Not only they and their ponies can make a mistake, but so can a third party; for example, a speeding motorist.

The noble Lord, Lord Monson, seems to be more concerned with parental judgment and authority than with child safety. How can he be so confident of parental judgment? Some parents are good and some are bad. Parental judgment cannot always be right. Finally, I add that being right in this case is for the child to wear a BSI-approved helmet. I oppose the amendment and support the Bill.

8.20 p.m.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I should like to add the support of these Benches for this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, brought forward a sensible suggestion. My only criticism is that it does not extend to enough people; it does not relate to the full range of people who ride nor to those who ride the whole time. One is in a potentially dangerous situation if one is on a large animal capable of travelling at considerable speed. One could easily fall off and thus it would seem sensible to have protection.

I am against the amendment because these dangers exist and some form of protection should be available. Those at greatest risk are those identified in the Bill. I should like to feel that it is only a first step towards a more comprehensive protection for all those engaged in this activity.

The noble Lord, Lord Monson, made certain other points regarding toughening people up and mentioned school rugby, a sport with which I am familiar. I should point out that when the pitch is frozen or baked hard one does not play rugby on it. One does not risk having one's neck driven into that ground by someone else. If the danger of two people slamming another into a hard surface is a situation which can cause injury, I suggest that a horse falling on top of someone, with that person's skull underneath that weight, with that great force would cause considerably worse injury.

8.21p.m.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, the Bill deserves the support that it has received throughout the evening. I shall refer to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, shortly.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said in her very clear introduction, around 1 million children ride regularly and only 80 per cent. of them wear safety headgear. Of that 80 per cent. many wear badly fitting headgear or headgear of poor quality, as we heard from almost all noble Lords who are familiar with this situation. A badly fitting hat is useless. It can fall off before the rider reaches the ground. A poor quality hat is just as bad; even if it stays on it may not give the necessary protection.

As we heard, the dangers are increased when riders take to public roads, and it is at that that the Bill is primarily aimed. Most riders these days, especially in suburban situations where much riding takes place, have to use public roads in order to reach their favoured path. They face the added hazard of motor cars. Many drivers are not familiar with the need to take extra care when horses are present; they drive too close and hoot their horns. Horse riders should have priority. It is surprising how few motor vehicle drivers are aware of that. In my experience very few of them give way as they should. The danger to young riders is especially severe when they are still learning to control their mounts.

The Bill has the backing of the British Horse Society and will help to reduce the risk of serious head injury. The British Horse Society also draws attention to the cost to the community of these accidents—as did the noble Lords, Lord Auckland, Lord Willoughby and others—as well as to the family caring for the victims of serious head injuries. Those victims may be confined to institutions for several years.

I received a moving letter from a Mrs. Teacher, copies of which I believe other noble Lords have received, who owes her life to the skill of a Nottingham neuro-surgeon, probably the same neuro-surgeon to whom several noble Lords referred earlier. Mrs. Teacher draws attention to the pressure such accidents place on the National Health Service to the disadvantage of others awaiting treatment for unavoidable medical problems. As others have said, it makes sense that the Bill should be passed thus ensuring that avoidable accidents are prevented.

I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He feels that the proposal will pave the way for further erosions of personal freedom. As the noble Baroness said in her introduction, we are speaking of children who need to be protected and who could hardly be expected to make such decisions for themselves. Of course their parents have a responsibility and many of them do ensure that their children are properly equipped. However, the figures given at the beginning of the debate speak for themselves.

Perhaps I could quote from the letter received from the British Horse Society. Of the 3½ million horse riders, most of whom have to ride on roads, Most of these people are not very experienced in the sense that they do not have a family back-up in knowledge of horses". It is an increasing trend. There are a growing number of what might be called first generation horse riders. Their parents, with the best will in the world, are unaware of the dangers.

I should like to give one illustration similar to that given by the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, in his moving speech at the beginning of the debate. It is the kind of accident which can happen despite parental care and which meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, regarding parents choosing a docile mount.

A family of four with whom I am closely acquainted set out for a day's pony trekking. They were riding docile ponies and were wearing protective hats. One of the ponies was stung by a bee and bolted, frightening the other three. In the confusion a boy (aged around 12) fell from his pony losing his hat as he fell. Injuries to his head kept him in hospital for many anxious months and his sight is impaired, probably permanently.

That is a case where parental judgment and authority had been exercised but still the injuries were inflicted. If the provisions of the Bill had been in place the type of headgear worn would have been different and serious injury probably prevented. Given the choice I doubt whether those parents would have been too worried about an infringement of their individual freedom.

I not only support the measure, but I should like to see similar protection for young cyclists. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that we should be wary of infringement of civil liberties and I would stand with him on that issue through many pieces of legislation. However, where children are concerned there is a difference. I hope that the House will reject the amendment. I support the Bill.

8.27 p.m.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support the Bill and to have the opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on her speech introducing the Bill to your Lordships' House this evening. Although it is not a Government measure, it is one which the Government support as it will contribute to a reduction in the number of children killed and injured on our roads.

I agree with all the noble Peers who have pointed out just how important it is for horse riders to wear protective headgear. While of itself it will not reduce the number of accidents on roads involving horse riders, it will considerably reduce casualty severity. While it is not possible to say quite how many children will benefit from the Bill, it is apparent that it will address at least some of the problems of child road safety. The provisional figures for 1989 show that 378 children were killed and 7,928 seriously injured on British roads. Deaths were down some 8 per cent. on 1998. It is particularly pleasing that child pedestrian deaths were down 14 per cent.

It is very difficult to identify particular causes of accidents to children. However, it is quite apparent that a lack of training is often a contributory factor. It is vitally important that parents ensure that their children are trained in road safety however they travel. In that context I particularly commend the British Horse Society for running its valuable riding and road safety test. Any parent of a child who is likely to ride a horse on the road should ensure that the child passes the test. I also commend to the House the training package Horse sense produced by the British Institute of Traffic Education Research on behalf of the British Horse Society. Parents who ensure that their child is properly trained greatly reduce the risk of them being involved in an accident. However, road safety cannot rely entirely upon the actions of the vulnerable road users. It is also important that drivers change their behaviour.

In 1989 road deaths were up 4 per cent. at 5,203, although serious injuries were down 3 per cent. at 61,803. Almost all of the increase in deaths was on rural minor roads; exactly the sort of road where horse riding takes place. Again it is difficult to identify causes. However, one major cause must be inappropriate speed. Sixty miles an hour is often quite inappropriate on such roads. All too often accidents are caused by local people who know the roads well, travel ridiculously fast and assume that there is nothing round the corner. If there is a horse rider, a walker or a cyclist an accident can be the inevitable result. The Department of Transport is investigating ways of altering the road environment to encourage drivers to drive at an appropriate speed.

A particularly interesting experiment is being carried out by Hampshire County Council. It has introduced a 40 miles an hour speed limit zone in the New Forest perambulation. The limit was introduced to help reduce the number of horses and cattle being killed. Before the limit was made vehicles had been measured travelling at over 90 miles an hour on narrow single carriageway roads. That sort of conduct is disgraceful. The council is looking at ways of introducing speed reducing engineering devices to make the limit self-enforcing. I commend those efforts.

Although the Bill creates a new offence, the penalty is to be set at the lowest level and it should not produce an extra enforcement load for the police. With over 80 per cent. of children voluntarily wearing riding helmets it is likely that the law will be self-enforcing. It is paradoxical that only when people are obeying a sensible rule is it appropriate to enshrine that rule in law. Experience has shown from, for example, the laws on seat belts and motorcycle helmets, that very high compliance can be achieved with little police effort. I fully expect the same to happen with this law. Statistics are not yet available for the improved safety record resulting from the rear seat belts for children legislation passed in 1988, but it is estimated that about 200 fewer deaths or serious injuries a year have occurred.

I said that over 80 per cent. of children voluntarily wear riding helmets. It is probably more accurate to say that their parents or riding instructors insist on them using hard hats. I applaud their responsible behaviour and in no way does this Bill affect their liberty. What we are concerned about is the other 20 per cent. It is likely that some of their parents hand over the welfare of their children to a riding school in good faith expecting them to take the same care as they would themselves. They have the right to expect the law to protect them and this Bill will do so if it is passed, as I hope it is.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that Britain would be the only country in the world to have such legislation. I believe that Britain often does take the lead over such matters, and other countries then follow. We should be proud of that leadership in seeking to prevent tragic accidents. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, and I beg to differ over protective headgear for young riders.

We have heard tonight some very interesting, moving and sensible speeches. It is a particular pleasure to deal with legislation involving horses with the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. As young people, many years ago, we rode together in Ireland

The noble Viscount, Lord Allenby of Megiddo, queried the age limit and wanted to raise it. The Bill originally made it an offence for an adult to permit a minor to ride a horse without wearing protective headgear. The word "minor" includes anyone under the age of 18. Previous legislation such as that on child restraints in the rear seats of cars which puts a vicarious responsibility on adults, has been restricted to children under 14. The Government are strongly of the view that this legislation should be similarly limited. The law assumes that young persons aged 14 to 17 are able to distinguish between right and wrong. The Bill was thus amended to apply to children under 14.

The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and others, referred to the need for standards of protective headgear. That matter will go out to consultation and will be in regulations. I hope this evening's debate has helped in that respect. The proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, would be very difficult to enforce because police power of entry would be required if the legislation covered everywhere. However, it is to be hoped that the 20 per cent. who do not now wear protective headgear will, if it is worn on the roads, also wear protective headgear in all circumstances.

I again thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will withdraw his amendment.

8.35 p.m.

Lord Monson

My Lords, at the beginning of my speech, I suggested that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, would probably have mustered strong support for her Bill. Indeed, how very well she has managed to do so! A number of harrowing individual cases have been described to us. The difficulty with such arguments is that if a Back-Bencher were to introduce a Bill making helmets compulsory for cyclists—we have already had one noble Baroness suggest such a course—or if another Back-Bencher were to introduce a Bill outlawing rugby in schools, an equal number of harrowing examples of severe injury would almost certainly be cited by noble Lords.

One could undoubtedly reduce injuries still further by outlawing every dangerous sport or activity; but how far does one travel down that road? One always hears about casualty departments when this sort of legislation is discussed. One can only lighten the load on casualty departments by outlawing every activity which is considered to be remotely dangerous.

I believe the noble Lord, Lord Manton, thought that parental judgment should be subordinated to that of the experts in this matter. Presumably therefore he believes that parental judgment should also be subordinated in regard to helmets for cyclists and in regard to vaccinations, where at present parents have the right to disagree with the experts and get away with it.

We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, about irresponsible drivers of motor vehicles. Indeed, I entirely agree, not so much about cars but about motor cycles and, above all, sand and gravel lorries and similar vehicles. But hard hats will only help in a minor proportion of such resultant accidents: I am sure the noble Baroness will accept that. Surely it is better for the police to devote their energies to cracking down hard on dangerous drivers in preference to pursuing individual riders themselves.

If I thought that there would be a moratorium on further legislation of this nature I might relent in my opposition to this Bill; but the noble Viscounts, Lord Allenby, Lord Mills and Lord Mountgarret, have confirmed my worst fears. All three want the Bill to be extended right up the age scale. I am certain that the passage of this Bill will give the green light to those who are determined to restrict adults as well as children.

However, as luck would have it, six out of seven of my strongest supporters cannot be here tonight because of prior social or business commitments. Additionally, many noble Lords, as will be obvious, are having a well-earned dinner and will not have had the opportunity to hear the arguments deployed. Therefore, I will not ask your Lordships to march physically through the Division Lobbies; I will reserve that procedure for the Committee stage. Nevertheless, I should like to test the purely verbal and sendentary opinion of the House. I cannot therefore withdraw my amendment.

8.38 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne)

My Lords, the original Question was, That this Bill be now read a Second Time, since when an amendment has been moved to leave out all the words after "that" and insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The Question I now therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.

On Question, amendment negatived.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.