Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Monson (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 10 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill [HL].


Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, I gladly pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for the improvements that he has made to the amendments, and I pay tribute to his conviction in pursuing this matter, whether I agree with it or not. But even if one ignores libertarian considerations and objections to any further extension of the nanny state, the amendment still fails on practical grounds. Children nowadays, particularly older children aged 12 or 13, are far less inclined to obey their parents or their guardians, be they temporary or permanent, than was the case 50 years ago. Most parents today are in no position to keep permanent watch on their children’s outdoor activities. If the amendment confined itself to children under 12, rather than under 14, it might just be workable, although whether it is desirable is another matter. I do not think it is workable as it stands.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c125 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Death Accidents Cars Dangerous driving Cycling Fixed penalties Disqualification Driving under influence Large goods vehicles Driving instruction Helmets Electric vehicles Roads Safety Road traffic offences Speed limits
Legislation
Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk