Clause 20 - Breach of requirements relating to children and seat belts
Road Safety Bill
10:00 am
Mr Christopher Chope (Shadow Minister, Environment and Transport; Christchurch, Conservative)
I should be grateful if the Minister explained a bit more about clause 20. There is an assertion by the Government that not wearing a seat belt in the rear seats should be subject to the same maximum penalty as not wearing one in the front seats. Does he not accept that a child sitting in the front of a car, whether with a seat belt or not, is much more vulnerable than a child sitting in the rear? It is therefore much more important that a child sitting in the front seat should be wearing a seat belt—or preferably, for a very young child, a safety seat. That higher risk was the reason for the differentiation in maximum penalties.
Fortunately, notwithstanding the differing penalties, compliance with front-seatbelt laws is high. The problem with rear seatbelts is that it is more difficult to supervise children in the back of the car, as you probably know, Mr. Pike. Often, there are more children in the back of a car than there are seatbelt fittings, and children can therefore get used to travelling in the back without additional seatbelt anchorage.
The clause would put the wearing of seatbelts in the back and front of cars on a level footing. I should think that it is better that children travel in the back of cars, rather than the front, because they are less exposed to danger. We should not create the impression that the risk of travelling without a seatbelt in the back is equal to that in the front. The front is and always has been a more dangerous place in which to travel. Can the Minister justify the assertion underlying the clause that there is equal risk and should therefore be equal culpability and maximum penalties?