HL Deb 23 May 1991 vol 529 cc379-91

2.39 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd May be approved [19th Report .from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations would require passengers aged 14 or more travelling in rear seats of cars and taxis to wear a seat belt where one is fitted and available. It is estimated that this measure will save up to 100 lives and 1,000 serious injuries each year. This would make a major contribution towards achieving our target of reducing road accident casualties by a third by the year 2000.

The benefits of wearing seat belts are well proven and widely accepted. The introduction of mandatory wearing of seat belts by drivers and front seat passengers in 1983 has prevented at least 200 deaths and 7,000 serious injuries every year since then. The extension of the law in 1989 to children under 14 occupying rear seats has saved an estimated 200 children from being killed or seriously injured in the first year alone.

That is convincing evidence for extending the law again to include adults in rear seats. I am sure many of you will have seen film of simulated crashes with unrestrained dummies in rear seats. Such film shows why we cannot accept the argument that people should be free to decide for themselves whether or not to wear seat belts. Passengers in rear seats who do not wear seat belts risk not only injury to themselves, but in an accident are thrown forward with tremendous force often injuring or killing other occupants of the car.

The consultation exercises that we have carried out, both on the proposal to introduce this legislation and later on the terms of the regulations themselves, have shown an overwhelming majority of responses in favour of requiring rear seat adult passengers to wear seat belts; the police, the motoring organisations, road safety bodies and the medical profession all strongly support this legislation.

As I have said, the regulations will only require seat belts to be worn when they are fitted and available. This principle recognises the practicalities of everyday life. Large families or groups will not be prevented from travelling because there are more people than restraints. Car owners will not be required to fit rear seat belts in cars which do not have them, although I would strongly advise them to have them fitted. Fitting of rear seat belts in all new cars and taxis has been required since 1987 and this means that almost the entire vehicle fleet should be equipped in two or three years' time. As with existing legislation on seat belt wearing, the regulations provide for a number of specific exemptions including exemption on medical grounds.

The penalty for not wearing a rear seat belt when one is available will be a £16 fixed penalty or, if the case goes to court, a fine of up to £100, but I am sure that most people will accept that this is a sensible and beneficial measure and that it will therefore be largely self-enforcing. That is certainly the case in respect of front seat belts where the compliance rate is almost 95 per cent., one of the highest in the world. It is vital that the public should be well aware of any new legislation of this sort and we plan to support introduction of the regulations with a major publicity campaign to increase public awareness.

The regulations will considerably reduce the terrible toll of deaths and serious injuries on our roads and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd May be approved.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)

2.43 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, the Opposition unreservedly support the draft regulations to which the Minister spoke. I compliment the Government on introducing them. The Minister may feel that it is an unusual state of affairs for me to compliment him on anything, but I do so today without qualification. I am more than pleased that he is proposing a substantial publicity campaign; that is a vitally important part of making the public aware of the provisions that we are discussing.

The Minister was right to draw attention to the benefits that have accrued from the requirement to wear front seat belts. There can be little doubt, based upon close examination of the situation by organisations such as the Automobile Association, the RAC, the British Medical Association, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders—and the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety concurs in the view—that this is a measure which is critically important in terms of saving lives and reducing injuries.

The Minister spoke of penalties; in my view the criminal penalties that attach are less important than the civil sanctions that have applied in regard to the non-wearing of seat belts. People who are totally innocent of any negligence by being passengers in a vehicle may nonetheless find that their damages are substantially reduced—between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent.—in the event of a claim being made because contributory negligence attaches to the fact that they may not have worn seat belts.

That civil sanction is perhaps not widely understood. In the publicity campaign which the Minister is about to launch will he take note of that point? Whether someone is fined £100 or less for not wearing a seat belt may be by the way. What is important is that people should understand the gravity of having a substantial claim for damages enormously reduced. From my experience long ago people were caught by surprise that the civil sanction applied. They tended to blame their solicitors. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board. It is part and parcel of the task of alerting the public not only to the benefits of wearing a seat belt in the rear of a car but to the critical problems and prejudice which they may suffer if they do not and are involved in an accident.

2.45 p.m.

Lord Callaghan of Cardiff

My Lords, both Front Benches are in favour of this measure, which I am sure makes it worth while, although some of us who are more sceptical may wonder. I look for a little advice and help from the Minister.

Perhaps I may begin with a personal account. When I am free and have nothing on my mind, I sit in the front seat of the car and securely fasten my seat belt. I proceed happily and safely to my destination. However, when I have work to do I retire to the back seat without a seat belt. I take out my papers, open them up, read them with some ease, put them back and even write a few notes. I manage to get my work done before I reach my destination. The question is this. Has the Minister yet discovered, and has he communicated to his colleagues, a foolproof and simple way of reading his official papers while travelling between his home and another destination? If he has, would he kindly pass it on to me because I have yet to find one.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will find my question simpler and easier to answer. It refers to paragraph 3 of the regulations. My noble friend enthusiastically maintains—and for once he is enthusiastically supported by the noble Lord opposite—that the wearing of seat belts has been a valuable factor in reducing casualties and injuries. In those circumstances, why do the regulations not apply to a, motorcar which is not constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver"? In other words, why should the regulations not apply to a vehicle where there are more than eight passengers? Is the provision designed to prevent the application of the rule or principle to coaches? If so, why? I have often felt that the fast coaches which operate on our motorways, with their seats close together, are probably more dangerous in the event of an accident than if one is seated in the back of an ordinary car. If we are to apply these rules to the back seat of an ordinary car, it is a little difficult to understand why the Government are not contemplating extending them to coaches, where the danger is at least as great and many people think even greater? Perhaps my noble friend will indicate whether the opinion I have expressed on the reason for paragraph 3 of the order is the right one—it may not be—but if it is, do the Government have it in mind to extend the provision to coaches?

Lord Walton of Detchant

My Lords, I offer my warm support for these regulations. In doing so perhaps I should declare an interest, being a medical adviser to the Automobile Association. It has been a legal requirement since 1987 for all new cars to be fitted with rear seat belts. Many older cars have them. Now more than half the cars on our roads have these seat belts fitted. About 300 people are killed and over 4,000 seriously injured each year while travelling in the rear of cars. Studies in Sweden have shown that these injuries can be reduced by up to 55 per cent. when rear seat belts are worn. But the very low rate of the voluntary wearing of seat belts in this country minimises the benefits of these restraints.

As the introduction of the law requiring the use of seat belts in the front seat has, as the Minister said, increased the wearing rate to 95 per cent., legislation is obviously desirable. While it is true that it will cause minor inconvenience to some people—perhaps to many—I am sure that that is greatly outweighed by the saving of lives and the reduction in injuries that will result if these regulations come into force.

2.50 p.m.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

My Lords, I warmly welcome the measures so ably moved by my noble friend the Minister. When I was president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents we were, and it still is, in favour of passengers being restrained in the rear seats of vehicles. RoSPA has been pressing also for the inclusion of a requirement that vehicles which are required to be manufactured with seat belt anchorage but not required to have seat belts fitted should be subject to retrofitment over a period not exceeding 18 months. We were advised that the cost of so equipping a car would be less than the cost of purchasing a mid-range car radio cassette player. We also widerstand that, even with the decline in the number of these cars on the market, there would be a substantial saving of lives, which is conservatively put in excess of 100 people each year, with considerably greater savings in injuries.

The other matter to which we wish to draw attention deals with those who decide not to wear seat belts. We believe that offenders should be subject to a fixed penalty fine of not less than £75 and not £16 as my noble friend has suggested, I believe that that is far too low. 1 warmly support the measure.

2.52 p.m.

Lord Monson

My Lords, the fact that I am probably the only speaker who is going to oppose the measure this afternoon should not be taken as an indication of the support the measure has in the country, or even in this House. There are many noble Lords who privately agree with me, but who feel that to come along on a day just before a Recess to speak against it is spitting into the wind. Well, I for one have never been worried about spitting into the wind.

The fact that various organisations as cited by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, support this measure would be of great significance were we a corporate state such as Mussolini's Italy. Since we are not yet a corporate state the views of individual organisations carry no more weight in law than the views of individual people. I am also interested to hear the statistics which the noble Lord gave. I know he gave them in good faith, but, if I may say so, they are suspiciously round-100; 1,000; and so on. Rather more than 10 years ago I well remember the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, putting down a Question for Written Answer asking how many people were killed as a result of smoking. Back came the answer from the DHSS-50,000. Within five years that fig Ire had doubled to 100,000. The DHSS is now rather more cautious and only increases that by 10,000 a year. Frankly, that is nonsensical. Either 50,000 was nonsense or 100,000 was nonsense and possibly 110,000 is too. Therefore we must regard these figures with a little caution, bearing in mind that the claims that 201) lives a year are saved by wearing front seat belts are a good deal less than the claims made at the time the original measure went through.

I turn now to a purely practical note, leaving the important matters of principle and morality to the end. Six days ago I tried to highlight the absurdity of applying this law to London taxis operating in built up areas with a speed limit of 30 miles an hour or less. London-style taxis are found not only in London, but in many provincial towns as well. There can be no question of a passenger coming into sharp contact with the driver in the event of a collision. The Minister on the day in question replied that on average 28 people in London were seriously injured in London taxis. As we know, serious injury can range from a simple fracture of the little finger, upwards. That is not necessarily serious by normal definition. I am prepared to bet that a far greater number of people are injured on London buses. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, probably feels the same way. However, there is no question of bus passengers being compelled to belt up. Standing passengers on buses, trains and underground trains are particularly vulnerable. I happen to know someone who not very long ago was seriously injured while standing in a London bus: she was flung against a metal seat. Buses, tubes and trains are by no means accident free. Logically, if one applies this law to taxis, one should apply it to all forms of transportation in London. I am certain that more than 28 people a year are seriously injured playing rugby football or similar dangerous sports. We read that 400 Londoners are seriously injured each year by dogs, not all of them by any means pit bull terriers or other of the breeds which the Government propose to ban.

I pointed out last Friday that the number of lives lost in taxis is minuscule compared with the number of deaths resulting from falling down stairs or from sun bathing, which produces skin cancer, as has now been made clear. Last year 500 men and 600 women died from that form of cancer. On past precedent, applying this regulation to taxis in urban areas will save three lives in every four years—that is to say, three lives in every 2,624,000. Put another way, if taxis in urban areas were exempt, 99.99989 per cent. of the population would still be alive.

The law will in practice be unenforceable. The taxi driver is most unlikely to know the name and home address of the passenger; and in the absence of identity cards, no passenger in his right mind will give his correct name and address to the police. What about medical exemptions for foreign visitors? Will the police be trained to interpret exemption certificates in Spanish, Hungarian, Urdu and Thai, or will an English doctor be called in to issue a separate certificate?

Let us consider the case of two elderly and possibly rather frail, physically or mentally, American tourists being driven from the Hilton Hotel to Shaftesbury Avenue to see a play. The driver does not himself have to wear a seat belt—the Government have failed to mention that significant point. Are taxi drivers dying in droves although they are not belted? I do not think so. The driver gets out to help them to buckle their belts which they are incapable of doing themselves. The taxi crawls up Piccadilly at an average speed of seven or eight miles an hour, which is the average speed at which cars travel in London. It is a hot night and the belts chafe the passengers' necks; both passengers happen to be less than 5'2" tall. On the return journey the driver gets out of his cab in the middle of Shaftesbury Avenue to help the passengers put on their belts. This causes a traffic jam stretching all the way back to St. Paul's Cathedral. It does not bear thinking about. The idea that it will not adversely affect the tourist trade is sanguine in the extreme.

The next objection, which applies to cars as well as to taxis, is both practical and moral. Unless suitable head restraints are fitted in the rear of both cars and taxis, which may of course adversely affect the rear view of the driver, whiplash injuries are all too likely. The consequences of whiplash injuries can be severe in the extreme. I did not think they were until quite recently when a close relation of mine by marriage suffered just such an injury, not in a car but while pursuing winter sports. He was told that he would very likely have died but for prompt medical attention. The effect of the whiplash, if I have my medical facts correct, detached the lining of his artery from the wall of the artery. That is not by any means a totally uncommon consequence of whiplash injuries. Therefore to tell people that whiplash injuries are a small price to pay for avoiding being thrown forward against a front seat will not wash.

On the question of pure principle, there is no mandate for this measure. It did not figure in any party's manifesto at the last election. Secondly, we are not being given adequate time to discuss nor the opportunity to revise this measure, as has been the case with all earlier compulsory seat belt measures. Your Lordships will remember that we spent many hours debating the law making it compulsory for children to wear seat belts in the rear seats of cars. It was vigorously opposed by Lord Bruce-Gardyne from the Conservative Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, from the Liberal Democrat Benches and, of course, from these Benches by my noble friend Lord Erroll and myself.

This measure contradicts earlier assurances given by Ministers when the front seat belt legislation was going through Parliament. In answer to complaints that many passengers found seat belts extremely uncomfortable, the Minister's reply was, "Don't worry, they will always be able to sit in the back seats without having to wear seat belts."

I assume that the Liberal Democrats are supporting the regulations, although none of them has spoken yet. I say that because, when the children's rear seat belt legislation was going through this place, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, acknowledged that the case for imposing compulsion on adults was weaker than the case for imposing it on children. One can understand the Labour Party unreservedly supporting this measure because, with a few brave exceptions—and I can think of a few—the present day Labour Party is essentially anti-individualist and anti-libertarian.

The noble Lord, Lord Peston, gave the game away last Friday when he stated that the matter is to do with correct behaviour. That implies shades of the dreadful priggish disease which is sweeping through American universities—namely, "political correctness"—in which anyone manifesting the slightest suspicion of sexism, racism, ageism, heightism, weightism, and so on, is harangued like a back-sliding Chinese peasant in the days of Chairman Mao.

It is curious that a Conservative Government should adopt bossy Scandinavian socialist-style dirigisme of this sort. In 1979 the Conservatives claimed to be the party which would return decision-making to the people. If one does that, it implies that one is giving people the right to make mistakes—or what are deemed by others to he mistakes—provided that they do not harm other people, only themselves. To some extent that is still possible. For example, people who sunbathe are allowed to take the slight risk of attracting skin cancer for the transient pleasure of acquiring a tan.

I do not understand why car passengers—provided that they are made aware of the statistics and provided that the driver of the car agrees, because he is, so to speak, captain of the ship—should not be allowed to take the statistically even slighter risk of death or injury for the pleasure of riding in what the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, rightly pointed out was appreciably greater comfort. For that reason, I oppose the introduction of these regulations.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, this is an echo of 10 years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Monson. is certainly consistent and must be congratulated on that fact, even if I cannot congratulate him on his personal judgment. It may be a matter of constitutional interest to him to know that the great vote in 1981, which concerned whether we should have compulsory seat belts in the front of cars, was a free vote. It was regarded as a matter which touched the liberty of the subject and therefore, as I said, it was a free vote.

We had a tremendous debate on the issue in this House in which I believe the noble Lord took part. We won the debate in this place, amended the Government's Bill and sent it back to the House of Commons. It very nearly did not get the vote on the Floor of the House because leaders on both sides, as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, may remember, arranged for the Lords amendment to the Bill to be taken late at night—in fact, it was the night before the wedding of his Royal Highness, Prince Charles—when they thought that the prospect was better for the Government side rather than the supporters of the amendment. However, I am glad to say that my supporters carried the day and we won.

It was certainly a democratic affair. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, cannot complain of any government being magisterial in the matter. I believe that since that time public opinion in general—as we see reflected from all sides of the House—is that that was a sensible thing to do. Indeed, everyone accepted it and within a very few weeks there was about 95 per cent. observance. We have since moved on from one measure to another. This is the final one.

I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on introducing the measure which will make compulsory the wearing of seat belts throughout a motor car, with the qualification that in rear seats it will apply only where seat belts are fitted. They will be progressively fitted in all motor cars and generally worn. They will undoubtedly save a number of lives and prevent many injuries. The figure will probably run into hundreds of lives. The statistics may be modified. They were on the wearing of front seat belts. We now have a figure of 200. My noble friend said that a thousand injuries a year have been avoided. They are substantial figures. We are talking about human lives. If we can secure the forecast number of saved lives and avoided injuries through the wearing of rear seat belts in motor cars, surely the noble Lord, Lord Monson, despite his arguments, is in favour.

I warmly congratulate my noble friend on being the Minister to introduce the final measure in the cycle. I have happy memories of the great dramas of the past. It is splendid that public opinion has now evolved and there is now general support for what is an entirely practical measure. I congratulate my noble friend and have much pleasure in supporting him.

Lord Monson

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I take his point that it is desirable to save lives. But does he agree that as many lives could probably be saved by compelling motorists to drive with their side lights on throughout the day? That would not involve any restriction upon individual liberty.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, I doubt whether that would make much difference.

Lord Marsh

My Lords, one of the things that I find fascinating, like many other noble Lords who have served in both Houses, is the number of debates where the degree of passion raised seems out of keeping with the issue involved. We see that, whether it is homosexual law reform or car seat belts. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, whose debating qualities are recognised by everyone in the House, moves marginally towards an exaggeration of the infringement of personal liberties involved in the measure. After all, I suspect that every Member of the House has spent many hours sitting in an aircraft, strapped to a seat. Perhaps I may help the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, but I have never found a problem in eating, sleeping, drinking, watching bad movies and working.

Lord Callaghan of Cardiff

My Lords, that is different.

Lord Marsh

My Lords, it is different, but neither do I find any difficulty getting into my car seat and putting on a seat belt. I do it almost automatically. Occasionally, a policeman standing by draws my attention to the fact that I have not done so. I smile sweetly and put it on. I do not see the problem.

The biggest problem, which is why I was pleased to hear the Minister mention the publicity campaign, is that everyone recognises the risk and accepts the intellectual case, against which it is difficult to argue, but has the belief that it cannot happen to them. That is why it is important to have a publicity campaign.

There is no question but that seat belts have an effect. I had a crunch on one occasion. As a fairly large character, I managed to break seven ribs, but did not go through the windscreen, as a result of deceleration. There were other unpleasant effects. There have been many encouraging factors about this brief debate: first, the Minister's policy; secondly, the changes to the law; thirdly, the public relations campaign which will accompany the introduction of the measure; and, fourthly, the solitary, splendid isolation of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who has just spoken against the measure.

The Viscount of Oxfuird

My Lords, I stand before your Lordships as a viable statistic. A year ago last February, my wife, my seven year-old son and I were involved in a serious car crash which kept us in hospital for many weeks. What is important about legislation of this nature is the effect it has on the concentration of minds. The mind can be concentrated only by establishing legislation which draws attention to a fact. As we see the cars on the motorways or the small country roads where perhaps greater dangers lie, we must consider all the people in the car and the restraint of as many as possible. Because of this restraint, fortune is on the side of my family and, I am sure, of many other Members of your Lordships' House.

My noble friend must be congratulated for dealing in solid terms with a situation which for a long time has not been properly addressed.

Lord Ironside

My Lords, I support the introduction of this legislation. I was a sufferer in that I had a serious car accident on 11th January 1978. Luckily I can remember nothing about it, so I can drive safely again. However, since I lay unconscious in hospital for three weeks, I realise the full implications of not wearing a seat belt. I had to spend four years justifying my actions in the High Court in order to claim damages and I was successful. There were technical reasons why that was so. When I thought of the accident afterwards I recognised that I was not wearing a seat belt because at that time in 1978 cars were not properly designed for belts. Therefore, people were discouraged from buckling them up in an easy fashion.

I see people at the moment not wearing seat belts in coaches, lorries, buses and taxis. To my way of thinking, the back seats of taxis are not designed for seat belts. If we are now considering having seat belts in the back seats of cars, taxis and coaches, much more attention must be paid to the design of vehicles to make it easy for people to wear seat belts.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have been kind enough to support the regulations which I brought forward this afternoon. First, I shall answer some of the points made in the debate and then those made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who has been alone in opposing the measure.

The House was interested to hear the personal experiences of my noble friends Lord Oxfuird and Lord Ironside: that the wearing of a seat belt helped the former and would have helped the latter. We are pleased to see my noble friend Lord Oxfuird back in his place after another visit to hospital to sort out the problems he experienced after his car accident.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his warm support for the measure. We welcome his support for any measure that the Government propose and look forward to more occasions like this. He made an important point which was reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, about publicity for the regulations. I wish to take the opportunity to congratulate the Kwik-Fit company for running its television campaign at present about the benefits of wearing rear seat belts. We shall mount our own campaign at the beginning of June, running up to the implementation of the measure on 1st July.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made an interesting point about the possibility of civil actions in respect of negligence and damage. I shall look into it. Whether or not it would be right for the Government to attempt to influence the courts in their actions I do not know. It may be possible to point out in some way to people that this could be the result of failing to obey the new law. However, that would require a certain amount of investigation. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, made an interesting point about attempting to study papers in the back seat of a car. In many ways I endorse what he said, but personally I prefer not to attempt to read while driving as I find that rather difficult.

Noble Lords

Oh!

3.15 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I meant to say that I find it difficult to read while travelling as a passenger rather than as the driver of a car. I hope noble Lords will not misunderstand me.

Over the years the improved design and fitment of seat belts in the rear of vehicles allows them to be worn with considerably more comfort and with a great deal less loss of convenience than used to be the case. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter touched upon the wearing of rear seat belts in coaches and mini buses; in other words, those vehicles with more than eight seats. Belts are required to be worn where they are fitted; that is to say, to all forward facing exposed seats. However, it is not as yet a requirement for all seats to have rear seat belts fitted. That is because under the terms of the relevant EC directives no manufacturer can be obliged to fit seat belts or anchorages other than to the front seats and all exposed forward facing seats. We have pressed the Commission to bring forward proposals as soon as possible which would require seat belts to be fitted on all seats in coaches and mini buses. We strongly encourage the voluntary fitting and wearing of such seat belts. However, as I have said, at the moment we are held up by circumstances beyond our control.

My noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux considered that we should introduce retrospective fitment. I am afraid the Government do not agree with that view. Such a measure would be unduly difficult to insist upon. As I said in my opening remarks, almost the entire fleet of cars will be fitted with rear seat belts by the mid-1990s. My noble friend also suggested that the fine was too low. That is a matter of opinion. It is the same as the fine for failure to wear a front seat belt.

I am most grateful for the kind remarks of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford who congratulated me on introducing these regulations this afternoon. However, it is my noble friend who should be congratulated as he can be considered to be almost the father of seat belt wearing. It was his tireless work which has got us where we are today. As my noble friend said, we are now on the last chapter in the book. My noble friend also answered some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that he was one of many, both inside and outside the House, who oppose this measure. Noble Lords inside the House must speak for themselves on this matter, but as they have not in general spoken against the measure today I trust that that is a fair indication of sentiment. There has been a number of speakers this afternoon and I believe it is fair to say that, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Monson, speakers have all been in favour of the measure.

A recent opinion poll by the GALLUP organisation showed support for the compulsory wearing of rear seat belts at some 82 per cent. I know one should not always believe everything that is claimed for opinion polls, but when the percentage in favour of the measure is so high it needs to be taken into account. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested we had no mandate to introduce this measure, but I do not believe that that is the case. We have a mandate to improve road safety. This measure is one step in that direction.

Lord Monson

My Lords, is it not better to try to prevent accidents happening in the first place rather than merely try to mitigate the consequences of accidents?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct. That is what we are doing. This is only one measure in a series of measures to improve road safety. To prevent accidents happening in the first place we need to build better roads as we are doing—and to make improvements to the design and construction of cars. We shall be pressing for such improvements. The noble Lord suggested that the measure contradicted earlier assurances given at the time when the wearing of front seat belts was introduced, and that this measure was an extension of the nanny state. I certainly do not wish to see the nanny state extended.

However, times change. The success of the measure relating to the wearing of front seat belts has determined that we should press on with this measure. I remind the noble Lord that whatever interpretation he may wish to put on the statistics, despite a 44 per cent. growth in traffic, the number of front seat passengers and drivers killed or seriously injured in 1989 was 16 per cent. lower than in 1982, the last year when seat belt wearing was not compulsory. In the first two years following the introduction of the new law, car occupant casualty victims arriving at hospitals fell by 15 per cent. and admissions fell by 25 per cent. Those figures speak for themselves.

The noble Lord suggested that taxis should be exempt. However, in the case of taxis overall, not just London taxis, casualties among taxi passengers are not insignificant: some 140 people are killed or seriously injured each year. Taxis are not limited to operating in urban areas. Many operate on motorways, to and from airports, for example, along the M4 and clown to Gatwick where high speeds are obtained.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have so strongly supported the regulation. I do not suppose that whatever I say will ever convince the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and I shall just have to allow him to remain in the minority.

The Earl of Selkirk

My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question which may affect a number of us. What happens in the case of those of us who have cars without seat belts on the back seat? Is there any obligation to fit them or to have the car changed?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, there is no obligation to fit rear seat belts if they are not fitted compulsorily—as they must be in cars built post 1987. However, if my noble friend were to decide to fit rear scat belts—and I would urge him to do so—I am sure that he will find it most beneficial.

Lord Harvington

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one very quick question. Supposing seat belts ate fitted and someone rather stupidly takes it into hip head to remove them, would he then be breaking the law?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Yes, my Lords.

On Question, Motion agreed to.