HL Deb 01 February 1993 vol 542 cc15-20

3.22 p.m.

Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th December be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these regulations will replace three existing sets of regulations made in 1982, 1989 and 1991 concerning the wearing of seat belts in motor vehicles. They differ from the earlier sets in that they incorporate provisions of Council Directive 91/671/EEC, and they also make other minor changes agreed following consultation last year. They have already been approved in another place.

As it happens, yesterday marked the 10th anniversary of the coming into force of the first seat belt wearing regulations in 1983. They made it compulsory to wear seat belts in the front of those vehicles which were required to have them fitted. At that time that meant, essentially, cars and light vans.

The 1981 Act, and its successor, applied the affirmative resolution procedure to the regulations relating to persons over 14, and the negative procedure to those relating to children in front seats. It made no provision for children in rear seats, but the gap was filled in 1988 thanks to a Private Member's Bill. So rear seat belt regulations appeared in 1989 for children and in 1991 for adults, both sets being subject to affirmative resolution.

So what we are debating is a new set of regulations replacing those three of the existing four which require affirmative resolution. Another set of regulations concerning children in front seats was laid before Parliament on 12th January and is subject to negative resolution. I shall include them in a general description of the new rules because they are all part of the same package. Also before Parliament are regulations under the European Communities Act 1972, making minor technical changes to the enabling legislation, which is now Sections 14 and 15 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

The existing regulations have done excellent service. Those applying to front seats have saved an estimated 200 lives and 7,000 serious injuries in each of the past 10 years. The rear seat belt wearing requirements are estimated to save a further 100 lives a year, making more than 2,000 lives saved in the course of a decade.

So, perhaps not surprisingly, the vast majority of the public now accept the road safety value of seat belts and child restraints, particularly in front seats of cars. There can no longer be any doubt that we have a popular mandate for those measures. Of 105 responses received to the consultation document, only one objected to compulsory seat belt wearing in principle.

Almost 95 per cent. of front seat drivers and passengers now comply with the wearing requirement. That is one of the highest wearing rates in the world. Unfortunately, the rear seat wearing rates are nothing like so good. In post-1987 cars which are required to have rear seat belts fitted, nearly 85 per cent. of children wear them but rather less than 60 per cent. of adults. Improving the wearing rate for rear seat belts will be the major objective of the campaign which the Department of Transport is launching tomorrow.

A person who travels unrestrained in the rear is not simply putting his own safety at risk but also poses a considerable risk to the front seat occupants. In a collision they can be thrown forward with alarming force, and the campaign will highlight that very graphically.

These new regulations will comply with the Community legislation on the compulsory wearing of seat belts which was adopted at the end of 1991. As often happens with Community legislation, we were already complying with the vast majority of its requirements but there were small differences which required us to amend our own legislation. At the same time the Government consulted on other minor but worthwhile changes, most of which have been adopted. I confess that the resulting statutory instruments look anything but simple, but we are confident that the requirements themselves, as they apply to the vast majority of drivers and passengers, are straightforward enough.

The requirements may be summarised as follows: when travelling in the front seat of any vehicle an adult must wear a seat belt if one is available; when travelling in the rear seat of a car an adult must wear a seat belt if one is available; no child may be carried unrestrained in the front seat of any vehicle; no child may be carried unrestrained in the rear seat of a car if there is an appropriate restraint available anywhere in the vehicle; for that purpose an appropriate restraint is, first, for a child under three years old, a purpose built infant carrier or child seat, and, secondly, for a child of three years or over, a purpose built child seat if one is available, otherwise an adult seat belt.

I hope that your Lordships will agree that these are simple, common sense rules which have the significant merit of saying what a lot of people already believed to be the case.

There are, of course, a number of exemptions. These are almost unchanged from the existing regulations. The most significant change is in the exemption covering fire brigades and police. The limited nature of the previous exemption had caused operational difficulties for the police. However, I can assure your Lordships that chief officers of police have undertaken to direct their personnel to use seat belts at all times except when it would cause them operational difficulties.

The regulations make only relatively minor adjustments to seat belt law, but by simplifying the law and making it more easily understood, we are confident that they can further increase the wearing of seat belts and so make a further step towards meeting the Government's target of reducing casualties by one-third by the year 2000. If your Lordships approve these regulations, they will come into force tomorrow. I commend them to the House.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th December be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, we support the regulations, the purpose behind them, and their relative simplicity. Above all, we support any measures that will enhance safety on the roads, safety for passengers, drivers and children in vehicles. Casualties on our roads are still far too high. I believe that it is right to say that in recent years we have managed to achieve advances in this field which compare more than favourably with those of other European Community member states. That is to be thoroughly welcomed.

I know that even today, some 10 years (a decade) after seat belts were originally introduced, in conversation a friend or an individual may say, "I was saved by the fact that I was not wearing a seat belt". I suppose that it is all too easy for such examples to be cited from time to time. However, I submit to the House that the overwhelming evidence goes the other way. Individual examples can never really provide a strong case for changing the law.

I also believe that the arguments about breaches of civil liberties, which were echoed no doubt in this House and certainly in anther place when seat belt legislation was first introduced, have been extinguished by experience. The fact remains that substantial numbers of people, and families, have been saved the trauma arising from the tragic and early death of people within those families.

The fact also remains that charges on our National Health Service have been limited by reason of the action taken, with the overwhelming support of our population.

I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions. I do not know whether he will be able to answer them because I have given him rather short notice of the fact that I should be raising some of these issues. That is largely because I have not looked at my parliamentary agenda and had not realised that this matter was to be discussed.

My first question is about taxis. I cannot believe that I am alone in my experience of being almost totally unable to use a seat belt in the rear of a taxi. They are either extremely difficult to apply or extremely difficult to undo once one has spent a great deal of time putting them on. It may be that on a short journey, it is almost hardly worth putting them on at all. That is a great misfortune. I do not believe that people take the matter very seriously. I shall come back to that in a moment.

One might just about manage to put on one's seat belt on a 40 minute journey—for example, to Heathrow—about five minutes before arriving at one's destination. However, one is then at grave risk of not being able to catch the aeroplane because one cannot undo the seat belt. That is an important matter because I am not merely relating my own experience. I am sure that many of your Lordships have experienced difficulty in putting on rear seat belts in taxis. Something needs to be done about that.

Were those seat belts capable of being put on easily, the taxi companies should be applauded for advising us to wear them. It would be better if we were given the opportunity to do so.

The Minister referred to a campaign that the Government are undertaking. Would he tell us a little more about that? Is it a campaign to be taken to the schools? It is extremely important that that should be done. Who is likely to be recruited to assist the Government in putting over the educational campaign? Indeed, is it to be an educational campaign or is it simply to be a publicity drive? I believe that RoSPA and many other organisations are capable of giving the Government enormous help by taking those kinds of campaigns to the schools.

Roughly how many prosecutions for failure to wear front seat belts have been undertaken in each of the past two or three years? As I said before, there are too many instances in which people do not take the law sufficiently seriously. It is not merely a question of imposing penalties. The police have a duty to enforce the law as best they can, but when these issues have been raised I have asked on several occasions why adequate publicity is not afforded to the potential reduction in damages which may be available to an innocent passenger in a vehicle simply for not wearing a seat belt and thereby constituting an act of contributory negligence. The damages may be reduced by up to 50 per cent. To my mind that is a much more salutary lesson. Giving publicity to that fact would be far more salutary than advertising the criminal penalties which may be applied, which are not terribly consequential.

I should like to ask the Minister a question about rear lap belts. An issue was raised by my honourable friend Joan Walley in another place. She raised the point that the previous Minister responsible for roads and traffic, Mr Chope, had been asked what research the department was carrying out into the potential dangers of wearing single strap seat belts and what statistical information he had on injuries associated with the wearing of single strap seat belts. The reply was: Statistics on injuries caused by the wearing of lap belts in the United Kingdom are not available, but research in the United States indicates that lap belts reduced death and serious injury by 25 to 40 per cent. and three point belts by 40 to 50 per cent. Although there is no current research specifically into this topic, the Department is monitoring the effectiveness of all seat belts, in its accident crash investigations".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/2/92; col. 168.] On 26th January 1993 my honourable friend asked: Is it still the case that no research has been undertaken into the wearing of rear lap belts. If not, why not?".—[Official Report, Commons, Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, 26/1/93; col. 6.] I do not believe that the Minister's reply on that very important issue was at all convincing.

The last point that I wish to raise relates to European Community harmonising legislation because all the legislation must be harmonised so that no artificial barriers to trade are erected. I remember, back in the days when I was Transport Commissioner, discussing the issues of seat belts in coaches and mini buses. I gather that the Government have been quite active in trying to assist the Commission to bring that forward, but I wonder what is the current state of play. After all, it is now three or four years since that was initially floated in the European Commission. It may be that the Commission has found that there are great technical difficulties in introducing the matter; I do not know. Perhaps the Minister will indicate to the House the situation in that regard.

As I said at the beginning, we believe that this legislation is a considerable advance and we welcome it. I thank the Minister for the concise and uncomplicated way in which he introduced the matter to us in the House this afternoon.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Fraser of Kilmorack

My Lords, I support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, regarding the difficulty of dealing with seat belts in taxis. Being different from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in many ways—political affiliation, shape and age—I support him wholeheartedly in his views on this subject. I am entirely in favour of seat belts in taxis but I find it almost impossible, as the noble Lord does, to deal with them. The noble Lord's statement about putting a seat belt on in the back of a taxi and nearly missing the plane has also been my experience. Therefore, though someone with differing political views and of a different shape from the noble Lord, I have similar views on this matter.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friend about the all but impossible task of putting on a seat belt in the rear seat of taxis. It is quite useless to make this the law and to enact it in this regulation if the physical difficulty of putting on the seat belt prevents most law abiding citizens from actually doing so. It is up to the Government to ensure that taxi firms take another look at this matter.

However, I rise to speak on another more technical point; that is to say, it is not apparent to me, looking at these massive regulations, who is making them. They state at the beginning: Now, the Secretary of State for Transport, in exercise of the powers conferred", by various provisions, hereby makes the following Regulations". That seems clear enough but at the end of the substantive regulations, in front of the schedule, it is stated merely that the measure is, Signed by authority for the Secretary of State … Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Department of Transport". It is therefore not clear to me—I do not think it will be clear to your Lordships who is making these regulations. Is it the Secretary of State, as stated at the beginning of the regulations? Or is it the case that in some mysterious way in the course of his making the regulations he becomes so bored with them that he devolves responsibility and gives authority—it is not spelt out exactly how this is done—to an Under-Secretary to make the regulations? It is important that when regulations are made Ministers should accept full responsibility for them. Although I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Transport wishes so to do, there is certainly a rather blurred effect here as shown by the examples I have given.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I must ask him whether he is arguing that the ambiguity to which he has properly drawn attention—he is always so perspicacious about these things—is fatal to our willingness otherwise to adopt the draft regulations today.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I do not wish to argue that. I merely wish my noble friend the Minister to tell us exactly who is making these regulations.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his support for these regulations today. As regards the point the noble Lord and my noble friends made about the difficulty they have experienced in putting on seat belts in the rear of taxis, I must confess I have never personally had that problem. However, I shall investigate the matter.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

You have an official car!

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I also travel in taxis. As regards the publicity campaign mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on 2nd February the department will launch a £1 million television campaign on the need to wear rear seat belts. A leaflet will be produced to explain in plain English the changes brought in by the regulations. I take note of his suggestions with regard to schools and his comments about recent prosecution levels as well as the legal question of liability. I will write to the noble Lord on those matters, if that is acceptable to him. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made an interesting technical drafting point on which I have no option but to reply in writing. I commend the regulations to the House.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, will he give the House an assurance—he has already said that he will write to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about the important point he raised—that he will publicise the fact that contributory negligence allegations can lead to serious deprivation of damages for innocent people? I believe that is a matter that deserves support. On previous occasions when I have referred to this matter I have simply been told that the point has been noted. I believe the House wants something more than that. I hope the Minister will not only refer the matter to the Secretary of State but that he will also ensure that in some way I receive an answer and that the matter will be more widely publicised.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I shall refer the points just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I will highlight the point about the reduction of damages.

On Question, Motion agreed to.