---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, the Minister’s last remarks are very interesting, bearing in mind adherence to the law on seatbelts. To start with, very few people wore their seatbelts. To start with, it was not compulsory in the back of a car. It now is. If the Minister is fortunate enough to get an empty taxi to take him home tonight, he will find that there is a notice in the back of the taxi telling him that it is against the law not to wear his seatbelt. So the situation changes. It changes with education, I agree—in this respect, education of children on cycles—but in the past it has changed with education of adults in their motor vehicles. The Minister asked: who is responsible for ensuring that the child wears a helmet? In a car, the driver of the car is responsible for the passengers wearing a seatbelt, as well as himself. With children, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said that his children took their bicycles when they wanted to go out. When my children were young, there were standard instructions and rules that they had to obey, and they were in trouble if they did not. There can be a standing instruction that whenever they take their bicycles, they wear a helmet. That is not difficult. I know that children do not always obey their parents—I quite agree about that—but it is not difficult to lay down boundaries that they are not supposed to cross. Those boundaries get relaxed as the children get bigger. Later on, they are allowed out beyond nine o’clock at night, and so on. But with small children, you can lay down the rule that they must wear helmets and they are in trouble—sent to their beds, or whatever—if they disobey that rule. Also, schools can lay down school rules that children leaving school or riding around in school must wear a helmet or they will be punished. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that he did not support the amendment because 100 or so children might die or have a head injury every year if they did not have a helmet. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, pointed out to him that 26,000 children were injured with head injuries every year, which is a rather different figure. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said that it was good to create a culture of helmet wearing. I agree. As I said, in Australia, compulsion is creating a culture in which children are out wearing their helmets the whole time. Any new law takes time to bed down and for everyone to obey it because not everyone is aware of it. The Minister pointed out that the percentage of boys wearing a helmet has reduced recently. That is a very good reason for making it compulsory. He also said that we would be starting from a low base and that we would need to move immediately to 100 per cent wearing of helmets. The argument about helmets applies in exactly the same direction as the argument that the Government used on drivers’ use of mobile phones, so that point will not wash. However, my noble friend Lady Hanham has put to me the argument, which she did not reiterate today, that my amendment would make children criminals. I shall look at that before Third Reading because I do not wish to make children criminals if I can help it. But it is important that we make it compulsory for children under 14 to wear protective headgear. I will reserve my right to bring the matter before your Lordships’ House at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 60 not moved.]