| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
31 Mar 2009 : Column 227WH—continued
“As the credit crunch bites it is all too easy for families to opt for the cheapest option and go online. We have to remove the element of doubt when it comes to safety equipment as the alternative does not bear thinking about”.
If people do not know the history of a car seat, or if they do not have the instruction manual, the seat can become lethal. It may not be compliant with the necessary safety regulation, which I am advised is UN Economic Commission for Europe regulation 44. What is more, such is the speed of technological development, a car seat from only a few years ago will definitely not afford the same level of protection as a new one designed and built to the latest safety requirements. ROSPA is clear that people should not reuse car seats that have been in accidents. However, the sad fact is that many parents who think they are doing the best thing simply do not know that they are putting their children in danger every time they go out in the car.
In an ideal world, we would have Government support to ensure that everyone with a vehicle can afford the best and safest car seat. Such support would ensure that parents struggling in the credit crisis would be able to avoid second-hand or hand-me-down products. There are a number of simple ways in which to make a real difference to hundreds of families who risk having their lives shattered by ill-fitted car seats. Make no mistake, the threat of poorly fitted children’s car seats is on our roads every day.
The BPA, which represents safety seat manufacturers, has been working closely with retailers such as Halfords and fuel companies such as Total as part of GMTV’s “Check It Fits!” campaign. Working with local authority safety officers and the emergency services, they have run a series of safety spot checks in garages and retail parks, providing a service for families on the school run. Some of the things they found in one week recently include:
“Monday, Aston Clinton. One driver had a child in the front of the car when it should have been in the back, we tried to put it in the back but found the seat belt connectors broken, the car supposedly had an MOT.
Tuesday, Burnham. Two-year-old in the back of an old Mini on a booster cushion with adult seatbelt around its neck—parent and grandmother declined free safety check and advice on correct restraint to use.
Wednesday, High Wycombe. Taxi driver with a two-month-old baby in the back of the car slumped in an adult seat belt and a three-year-old loose in the back of the car jumping up and down. His excuse were the restraints were in the other car. He did take some leaflets before roaring off.
Estate car pulls in with eight people inside. Two children in the luggage area unrestrained and one baby stuffed between the front seats. No child restraints anywhere, their excuse...they were on holiday! Another car pulls in with a child in the back of the car sitting in the child seat but not secured by the harness or seatbelt. The excuse was ‘He can undo it himself so it’s not worth doing it up’.
Thursday, Buckingham. All seats we checked were fitted correctly. ISOFIX prevalent—well done Buckingham.
Friday, Chesham. Final day of first week. One gentleman came in and had a child unrestrained in the back. When we advised him of the child seat regulations he said he lived in Hungary so it did not affect him.”
All I am asking for is a simple package of measures that will make a real difference. The Baby Products Association is calling for the proper enforcement of police stop and check procedures to cover car seat safety as a matter of course when stopping vehicles for traffic infringements. After all, an adult would be fined immediately if they were found not to be wearing a seat belt. The proper fitting of child car seats should become part of the MOT test, so that without a properly fitted adult seat belt, the vehicle would fail the test.
Industry has a role to play working in partnership with retailers, manufacturers, local and central Government and the automotive industry to train motor mechanics to put child safety first. Finally—this is what today’s debate is all about—the BPA is calling for a change in VAT rules to make ISOFIX bases more affordable for ordinary families. ISOFIX bases are not currently considered a baby product by the Treasury because the technology has changed since the Finance Act 2001, which first applied the reduced 5 per cent. VAT rate to baby products. The full 15 per cent. VAT rate still applies to each base sold. The Finance Act 2001 considers bases as a car accessory, like fluffy dice or go-faster stripes. I fail to see how an integral part of a safety system that can save children’s lives can be treated as a mere accessory.
The Government reduced the VAT rate on standard car seats for children to 5 per cent., which is to be applauded. I simply ask that the same logic be applied to ISOFIX technology. The consumer is being disadvantaged on cost, and possibly forced to choose inferior and less safe products, putting young lives at risk. That is clearly an anomaly, and I hope that it can be addressed in the Chancellor’s Budget on 22 April. The industry has been discussing possible changes with officials. Let us hope for good news.
As part of their response to the financial emergency, the Government decided to reduce the top-line VAT rate from 17.5 per cent. to 15 per cent. to stimulate the economy. It has been estimated that the change will cost the Treasury £12.5 billion. The cost of reducing VAT on car seat bases would be just £3 million. Let us hope that on 31 December this year, one fewer item will revert back to 17.5 per cent.
1.14 pm
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Angela Eagle): I apologise to everyone here for my tardy arrival, particularly the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who has secured a timely debate about an issue that is clearly due to be considered before the Budget. I wish the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday. I hope that he manages to get to his party earlier than I managed to get to this Chamber. Once more, I apologise.
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue relating to children’s car seat bases. Like any issue involving child safety, it is an important one for us to consider. The Government remain committed to ensuring the safety of children and babies travelling in vehicles. The Government’s road safety strategy, “Tomorrow’s Roads—Safer for Everyone”, seeks to reduce deaths and serious injuries of children involved in road accidents by 50 per cent. by 2010. Overall, casualties are down and we are on target to achieve that welcome reduction.
The number of children killed and seriously injured in Great Britain was reduced from 515 in 2002 to 276 in 2007. Clearly, every one of those is one too many, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are going in the right direction.
To meet the modern-day challenge of safety on the roads, the Government continue to highlight the dangers and promote good practice through our various “Think!” road safety campaigns. The Government introduced changes to seat belt regulations in 2006 to ensure that the majority of children use the correct child or booster seat. The changes mean that, with very few exceptions, all children up to 135 cm in height must now use the correct child seat or booster for their weight in both front and rear seats. Department for Transport publicity continues to promote the use of children’s car seats.
Recognising the importance of child safety in vehicles, the Government introduced a reduced rate of VAT of 5 per cent. for children’s car seats in 2001. At that time, as the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to highlight positively in his remarks, the Chancellor raised concerns about the number of children killed in road accidents and introduced the reduced VAT rate to help tackle the problem. He announced:
“Around 6,000 children under eight years old are killed or injured each year on Britain’s roads. It is vital that child car seats are correctly fitted and used to help protect children from harm when travelling by car. The VAT rate on children’s car seats will be reduced from 17.5 per cent to 5 per cent. This will reduce the cost of buying an essential piece of safety equipment, and encourage parents to buy better quality car seats, which can often be easier to fit.”
I am pleased to say that in 2002, the number of injuries suffered by children under eight years old travelling in cars fell to 5,107. By 2007, it had fallen further to 3,243. The Government continue to consider ways of reducing the number even more.
All child and booster seats that support the 2006 seat belt regulations benefit from the existing rate of VAT. The UK is one of only three countries among the 27 EU member states that have taken advantage of introducing that particular reduced VAT rate.
Bob Russell: I appreciate all the positive things that have been done. Does the Minister accept that the base and the car seat need each other, and that, having rightly reduced the VAT on car seats to 5 per cent., the Government should also reduce the VAT on the base, as the car seat cannot be used without it?
Angela Eagle:
The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. I am aware that the main issue in question is that a reduced VAT rate is not available for children’s car seat bases; I just wanted to set the debate
in context. I am sure that he understands that the picture is improving, and we all have an interest in seeking to improve it further.
The Government did not introduce a reduced rate for children’s car seat bases in 2001, when the relief was first introduced for children’s car seats, because such products did not really exist. Recent advances in technology have resulted in more specialised systems—the hon. Gentleman has mentioned ISOFIX—which improve the performance of child seats by rigidly attaching them to the car’s structure by simply plugging them into location points. This greatly increases the likelihood of children’s car seats being fitted correctly, which is obviously important. The hon. Gentleman has given some rather difficult examples of where that has not happened.
The issue is that some of those systems use children’s car seats in conjunction with separate car seat bases, and that there is an anomaly because those systems do not qualify under the current rules. They have a relatively small market share at the moment, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the seats that plug into those new base systems do benefit from the reduced VAT rate, although the bases do not. I am aware that Treasury officials have met the Baby Products Association, as the hon. Gentleman did before bringing this matter to the attention of the House, and that this issue has been discussed in detail in those meetings. I am also aware that the BPA has contacted a number of other MPs, who have consequently made pre-Budget representations for a reduced VAT rate for children’s car seat bases.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, the Budget will take place shortly. We are currently in the middle of pre-Budget processes, during which issues such as this are brought to our attention and considered, so it would be premature of me to make an announcement today. I am sorry if that disappoints the hon. Gentleman, but I congratulate him on securing the debate. He has brought this important issue to our attention, and his comments are being considered along with the representations being made to us from all directions as part of the pre-Budget process. If there are to be any changes, they will be announced in the Budget in a few weeks’ time. I am sorry to leave the hon. Gentleman dangling, and I am sorry that I cannot give a more detailed response at this juncture, but I hope that he understands why. We all share the common aim of reducing to zero, if possible, the fatalities of children and babies travelling in cars on our roads. We have made good progress with some of the changes that we have introduced, but more needs to be done, and we are considering this issue very closely.
1.22 pm
Renewable Energy
1.30 pm
Natascha Engel (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): I am grateful for having secured this Westminster Hall debate on what is becoming an increasingly urgent issue—the implementation of renewable energy targets.
In initiating the debate, my main aim is to make some constructive proposals to help us to move on from what I think is becoming an unsustainable situation. The main thrust of my argument is that we, as national Government, set UK-wide targets for renewable energy. However, the detail of those targets is left to each region’s spatial strategy to determine, and the planning application and the political fallout from implementing those targets are left with local authorities.
Local authorities have to deal with the local campaign groups, which are almost always against having a wind farm or a waste-to-energy gasification plant near where those people live. The process is massively time consuming, with local groups organising meetings, petitions and marches on town halls, and often results in planning applications being turned down. That suits no one and goes no way towards meeting our important renewable energy targets.
Nationally, the Government have set themselves the ambitious target of having 15 per cent. of the UK’s electricity produced from renewable sources by 2010 and 35 per cent. by 2020. Along with most other MPs, I support those targets. Most people now understand the urgent need to wean ourselves off environmentally damaging, unsustainable and dirty fossil fuels. In fact, when the targets were announced, many MPs had postbags full of letters from constituents demanding that the targets be set much higher, and, when we look at the current situation, it is easy to understand why.
The Local Government Association says that the electricity generated by renewables accounts for less than 5 per cent. of the UK’s total energy output. The Government have done much more to address the problem of global warming and CO2 emissions than any previous Government, but, in our hurry to implement those important policies, we are overlooking their impact on the people who live with the consequences.
For example, in and around North-East Derbyshire, two controversial planning applications are in the pipeline. The first is for a waste-to-energy gasification and incineration plant on the Sheepbridge industrial estate just outside Chesterfield. The second is for a wind farm on the edge of the Peak District national park. Those are two very different examples, but they illustrate how difficult implementation of our national targets is. I know that waste and recycling are not dealt with by the Minister’s Department, but I hope he will indulge me, because the point I shall make towards the end of my comments will show why it is important to raise those issues.
The developers for the gasification plant claim that energy generated from their scheme would provide enough electricity to supply 16,000 homes, which is not an insignificant number. The plant is planned for an ex-industrial site and would use new, and as yet unproven, technology to convert compostable materials, such as wood and food, to gas for heating and hot water. Those compostable materials would be extracted from noxious
and non-compostable materials. Some 75,000 tonnes of commercial waste a year would be delivered to the site, 15,000 tonnes of which would be separated and made into energy. The rest would be incinerated on site.
People, including me, support the development of new technologies to tackle our mounting waste problem. We need to stop sending so much waste to landfill and look more constructively at how we can reuse our waste to make energy. I absolutely support that. However, although the company planning the gasification plant at Sheepbridge says that any hazardous waste would be treated and would not escape into the atmosphere and surrounding towns and villages, people who live nearby do not want to take the risk.
The site may well be ex-industrial, but it is staggeringly close to the heavily populated outskirts of Chesterfield, including the whole of Dunston, Cutthorpe, Barlow and Whittington Moor. More than 20,000 people and several schools are in very close proximity to the site.
One 1,500-signature petition, several extremely well-attended public meetings and an expensive legal opinion later, the final decision on whether to grant planning permission has still not been made. The local authority will have to make that decision in the teeth of such opposition and local councillors will have to live with the political consequences. And now—this matter is dealt with by the Minister’s Department—another planning application has been made, this time for five turbines at the Matlock wind farm, which is on the edge of the Peak District national park. Three of those turbines would be in my constituency of North-East Derbyshire and two in the Derbyshire dales, an area represented by the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin).
That area may not be as heavily populated as the outskirts of Chesterfield, but it is, without doubt, an area of outstanding natural beauty. People have moved to the area specifically for its peacefulness, tranquillity and stunning views. Tourists come in great numbers every year for exactly the same reason. The Peak District and other national parklands are Britain’s backyard. People come from far and wide—especially from our cities—to enjoy the beautiful countryside. Right by the turbines is the Darwin Forest country park, with its lovely pine lodges. It is situated there because it is miles from anywhere and has some of the most lovely surroundings. Tourism is the local economy, and putting wind turbines in the middle of the scenery would destroy it. If we are talking about sustainability, we need to calculate how many tourists would stop coming to the Peak district, get on an aeroplane and fly abroad instead.
I totally support wind farms. Although many people find them ugly and industrial, I absolutely love them. However, our national parks are not an appropriate place to put them. Again, the ultimate decision, along with the political consequences for it, rests with the local authority. A vocal local campaign group has sprung up, and petitions have been signed and public meetings held. A lot of time and money have been spent, the local community has been divided and conflict fills the local press.
Rural versus urban is also an issue that is relevant to the debate. It is unlikely that a similar five-turbine wind farm application would be made for central London. It therefore falls disproportionately on rural and semi-rural
areas to deal with implementing these targets. However, serious tensions also occur in rural areas. Farming is, without doubt, suffering hard for all sorts of different reasons. Farmers need to be ever more creative in generating income to keep themselves afloat, and having a wind farm or a composter on their land can be a lucrative lifesaver for them at a time when conventional farming is less profitable.
When we think rural and semi-rural, we usually imagine rolling countryside and landed gentry, but that is not always the reality. Places such as North-East Derbyshire are predominantly ex-mining and have been involved with other heavy industries. People in North-East Derbyshire have lived for generations with polluted landscapes and toxins. Many people just do not think it fair that many of these applications are made in their areas because they are classed as former industrial sites.
I want to make a small point about nimbyism. Whenever I meet people from local campaign groups who want to prevent projects from being built close to where they live, they always start by saying, “We’re not nimbys, but...” I am sure that people are being nimbys, but there is nothing wrong with that. We are asking them to live with the consequences of the decisions that we are taking nationally. There is strong evidence to suggest that incinerators, and perhaps even wind farms, adversely affect house prices. If we want people to have such schemes in their backyard, we should be willing to compensate them. That could be done at the point of designating land that we make available for renewables and recycling schemes.
Given that we set our renewables targets nationally, we should also take responsibility for implementing them. The planning decision must still be made at local authority level, but the “small p” political decisions should be made here in Westminster. We need to act quickly. According to The Sunday Times this week, renewable power companies have so far erected 2,390 wind turbines at 200 onshore sites. Another 4,800 are planned, with many more to follow. That is a lot of people’s backyards.
Clearly, something needs to be done about the implementation of our ambitious targets to avoid costly, time-consuming and divisive local campaigns. I have two proposals to which I would like the Minister to respond. First, we should consider designating certain areas within each region where planning applications for renewable energy projects could be actively encouraged. Those areas would be identified nationally and would take account not only of areas of outstanding natural beauty, but of proximity to dense populations.
While we are still putting the finishing touches to the infrastructure planning commission, which is a national body that will look at planning decisions of national significance, we should consider including projects for renewables and recycling, as well as sites for nuclear energy generation, large road-building projects and aviation schemes. A nationally led but locally determined system for managing those applications seems the only way ahead.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |