HL Deb 17 May 1991 vol 528 cc1857-9

11.15 a.m.

Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have calculated the effect on the United Kingdom's balance of payments of the impending imposition of fines on foreign tourists who fail to wear their seat belts correctly in the rear seats of London taxis.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, no.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that brief Answer which was fairly predictable. Is he aware that prospective tourists from the United States—otherwise known as the land of the free—will not spend their hard-earned dollars travelling to a country which is rapidly being turned into a collectivist nanny state? Is the Minister further aware that annually an average of only three people are killed throughout the whole of Great Britain in the rear seats of taxis and only 2.2 within built-up areas? That compares with 19 people killed annually as a result of falling from trains, 30 people killed while tending their gardens, almost 300 people killed by falling down the stairs and 1,000 who die as a result of exposing their skin to the harmful rays of the sun. Do the Government intend soon to ban sunbathing, rail travel, gardening and the construction of houses more than one storey high?

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, I well understand the noble Lord's aspirations for liberty. I hardly think that the prospect of safer travel in London will deter foreign visitors. Indeed, many states in America have the same provisions. I am aware of the statistics quoted by the noble Lord in respect of traffic but not about sunbathing. If passed it is probable that the new regulations will prevent 100 deaths and 1,000 serious injuries each year.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has struggled to hide the fact that there is a serious side to the Question? If a person travelling in the rear of a taxi does not wear a seat belt there may be a reduction in the damages to which he or she may be entitled in the event of an accident. Does the Minister agree that to denigrate the use of rear seat belts is demonstrably silly and dangerous?

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raises an aspect of the Question that I had not considered. The House will be grateful to him. Wide consultation was carried out. It is significant that important organisations including the AA, RAC, BMA and RoSPA, and also the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, of which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford is a member, were enthusiastic about the proposals.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the matter comes before this House it will have the full support of Members on these Benches? Anything that can be done to eliminate what has been called the flying mother-in-law syndrome—namely, that the rear seat passenger kills the passenger in front and usually the mother-in-law is sitting behind—will have our support. Will the Department of Transport examine the suitability of the fittings in the rear seats of taxis because in my experience they are often awkward to fit?

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The matter will be debated in this House next Thursday. We are addressing the problem of fittings because in some London taxis they have been tucked under the seat.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, I declare an interest because my amendment originally introduced seat belt legislation in another place. Is the Minister aware that some people are worried that the existing law is not being effectively carried out? Does he agree that some people are becoming lax because there are so few prosecutions of those who do not fulfil the law of the land?

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, there are not many prosecutions. In 1989, 7,275 convictions were secured and 100,000 penalty notices were issued. The effect purpose of the law was to encourage what was already sensible, and it has had just that effect.

Lord Monson

My Lords, following the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, does the noble Lord agree that flying mothers-in-law are incapable of killing the drivers of London taxis, who incidentally do not have to wear belts, because a partition screens them from the passenger? The argument is nonsensical as regards taxis.

The point remains that only three people annually are killed in taxis: the argument for cars may be rather different. Does the Minister agree that this morning's by-election result seems to indicate that when faced with a choice of three major parties, all of which are now adopting collectivist policies on matters of this nature, the general public feel that they may as well vote for the party most closely associated with collectivism?

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, must pursue the matter about flying mothers-in-law with the noble Lord, Lord Tordofl I am aware of the statistics. In London, in the years 1985 to 89, the smallest number of people seriously injured in taxis was 22 and the highest was 34. I believe that the regulations have some relevance to road safety.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, on behalf of mothers-in-law and speaking as one, may I lodge an objection to the use of such a phrase in such a serious matter?

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, it is not for me to prevent the noble Baroness from lodging such an objection.

Lord Peston

My Lords, will the noble Lord assure us that this issue will be discussed on its merits, along the lines of the various questions which have been raised? The balance of payments has nothing whatever to do with it. The matter is to do with safety and correct behaviour. I take it that the Minister's original Answer demonstrates that that is how the Government will pursue it.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, we believe that in this matter the balance of payments is an irrelevancy.