| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
As the Minister will know, every American state, every Canadian province and every Australian state can decide its own seat belt laws. Why cannot the ancient nation states of Europe be allowed to do the same? Harmonising seat belt and other road traffic laws has nothing whatever to do with completing a single market. I suppose that I will be told that it was a previous Conservative Government who sold the pass. That may well be so, in which case this Administration cannot be blamed for this particular piece of Euro-nonsense. However, I hope—doubtless in vain—that they might in due course press for greater subsidiarity in this and similar matters.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, this document is intensely depressing. It contains a whole new batch of regulations at a time when I thought that it was fashionable to try to reduce regulation. The most demeaning of the new regulations is the requirement that children aged three to 11 and less than 135 centimetres in height must use a child restraint in the back seat of cars. Child restraints are designed for infants; they cost money and take up a lot of space in a car. This regulation outlaws parental judgment; it discriminates against families with several children and families from poorer backgrounds, who may be faced with having to buy a larger car or, indeed, a second car. There are other objectionable features in the document, many of which have been mentioned by other noble Lords. It is a further intrusion of the nanny state into personal and parental choice.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who contributed to the debate, although the regulations have not received quite the enthusiastic response that I might have wished for. I will do my best to meet the objections that have been raised.
Let me deal with the question raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Bradshaw, as well as by other speakers, about the difficulty of enforcement. We know that seat belts are not worn as frequently as we would wish. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned mobile phones, and we have all seen people who continue to use them while driving. But that does not alter the fact that seat belts save lives and an awful lot of people obey the law by wearing them. Banning the use of mobile phones by drivers also means that far fewer people use them today than was the case before the law was changed.
12 July 2006 : Column 784
Of course we cannot have a 100 per cent response—we do not expect that. But, over time, things gradually become part of the normal operation of people driving cars. The vast majority of people may not be assiduously concerned about safety, but they certainly do not want to be in an accident in which they or anyone close to them gets hurt.
As for enforcement by police, of course we cannot expect police officers to go around in patrol cars peering into every other car to see whether seat belts are effectively fixed, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, is also right that we cannot expect the police to appear at every junior school to tell parents what is required. But we can expect the police to act in their normal judicious and intelligent way. Any person involved in an incident of any kind knows that failure to comply with the law will put them in increased jeopardy. Gradually, people will begin to realise that it does not do to defy the law.
8.30 pm
I heard what the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Cobbold, said about the nanny state; it is usually the nanny international state when we are talking about Brussels directives. However, let us leave Brussels out of the issue on this occasion. These regulations derive from a Brussels directive, but noble Lords will recognise that Britain is at the forefront of road safety measures because we are proud that we have a better safety record than almost any other state in Europe. It will not do for us to blame our continental partners about this. We are prepared to take initiatives because we think that they save lives and reduce injury.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked whether the Government had taken cognisance of the fact that the wrong size child in a badly fitted seat belt could come to mishap. That is exactly so. We talked about necessary child restraints and proper seats for children because an ordinary seat belt will not meet the requirement for a child. A small child popped into the back of the car and given an adult seat belt may be marginally better off than without a seat belt at all, but in certain circumstances that seat belt might occasion the very injury that we seek to avoid. That is why the regulations consider children as a special category.
We have enough scientific evidence for this and we are not alone in our view—all other European countries also recognise this—that seat belts contribute to safety, as, indeed, do airbags. A feature of the past decade or so has been the improvement in accident rates because of better designed motor vehicles and particularly because of the introduction of airbags. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said that he could not deactivate his airbag. He is not alone in that—a large number cannot be deactivated. I think that mine can, but I have never done so. However, the point is that, if the airbag cannot be deactivated and therefore is in use, we must not use a rear-facing child restraint or seat because we know that that can create more danger to the child.
I recognise the anxieties about these regulations. I frankly and accurately reflected the anxieties of the Merits Committee. We have difficulty in interpreting Brussels directives. The noble Lord, Lord Monson,
12 July 2006 : Column 785
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned Northern Ireland and the penalty points system. If he advocates that system, he will lay himself open to even more criticism from the noble Lords, Lord Cobbold and Lord Monson, because the penalties are even greater for infraction of the law under the Northern Ireland example that he gave. Northern Ireland has the right to make its judgments in this area. It makes them separately from the rest of Great Britain. This order relates only to Great Britain. I hope that I have assuaged some anxieties.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the Minister answer my question about whether the use of lavatories on long-distance buses will be outlawed?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is an interesting one. I do not have the answer immediately in my brief. However, perhaps it is safer to use the lavatory when the bus has stopped. I recognise that people move around in buses. We want to minimise that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that this was an unfair obligation on the coach driver. We are not demanding that seat belts should be fitted in coaches, minibuses or anywhere else if they do not already exist. However, where they do exist, passengers should be told that the driver and the company operating the system expect those seat belts to be worn. There might be a little label on the back of the seat or an announcement by the driver. Increasingly, coaches have televisions and other forms of communication that could be used. The instruction to passengers should be that the driver expects that, because the bus is fitted with seat belts, they should be used. That is a basic requirement. The bus driver cannot be expected to enforce the law. He has done his duty when he has carried out the operation that I described.
Despite the criticisms this evening, I hope that noble Lords will recognise the good intentions behind these regulations. They are being subscribed to by other member states in the European Community. They are an advance in terms of road safety and I hope that noble Lords will give them a fair wind.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Education and Inspections Bill
8.38 pm
House again in Committee on Clause 6.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Lord Adonis) moved Amendment No. 46:
12 July 2006 : Column 786
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 46, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47 and 48. Amendment No. 48 ensures that the opportunities to participate in positive activities secured for young people under Clause 6 include sufficient youth work activities. That was a particular concern raised at Second Reading, and we entirely share it, because youth work has never been more important. It is met by the new duty on local authorities, which I hope is agreeable to the House.
Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 are minor amendments that improve the clarity of the drafting of the new duty to avoid the unhelpful interpretation that the duty could be fulfilled by securing access to any amount, however small, of educational leisure time activities, so long as it resulted in some improvement in well-being. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I strongly support Amendment No. 48, and with it the amendment tabled from the Liberal Benches, Amendment No. 49. Personal and social development is crucially important for young people today. Personal development is about how to relate to yourself, while social development is about how to relate to other people. These are key life skills—they are particularly key in employment and wealth creation and in family formation and child rearing. The latest Ofsted report from 2005—although there is another one cooking at the moment—suggests that the majority of schools are not satisfactorily delivering personal and social education today. The report suggests that about two in five schools are giving an entirely satisfactory delivery of this subject. I accept that it is not an easy subject to develop in a classroom.
What has happened is that the Government’s enthusiasm for citizenship and the general enthusiasm for sex education has led to citizenship and sex education almost taking over from the rather more general subject of PSHE.
Lord Adonis: Now that the noble Lord has developed his remarks, I understand what he is talking about—which is personal, social and health education in schools. That is not the subject of this amendment, which is about youth work being promoted—
Lord Northbourne: I am talking about this now because I may not be able to be in the Chamber when we come to talk about it, and it seems to me that the two subjects are very closely linked. The Government are inserting personal, social and health education here for out-of-school activities and then, under Amendment No. 67 they are removing personal, social and health education from the curriculum of key stage 4. That subject will arise under Amendment No. 67 and the amendments tabled by the Liberal Benches.
Personal and social education are hugely important. Can the Minister explain why the Government are putting it in here and taking it out in the later clause? I am not unsympathetic to the idea that it may be the better place to have it. Since we are in Committee, I shall not say more now but shall wait to listen to what the Minister has to say. If necessary, I shall come in again with all guns blazing, if we do not get a satisfactory answer.
12 July 2006 : Column 787
Lord Judd: As someone who was concerned about these matters at Second Reading, I welcome greatly the moves that the Government have made. It is a very good illustration of how my noble friend listens to argument and responds to it. I express appreciation in that regard.
Baroness Walmsley: From these Benches we too welcome these amendments, but I think I see what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is getting at. The position of personal, social and health education in the curriculum is an issue we will be coming to somewhat later. Many of us feel it should be mandatory. The noble Lord is right, however, that the personal and social development of a young person does not just happen in a classroom; it happens through leisure, sports, social and interactive activities outside the classroom as well. That is why I particularly welcome the Minister’s commitment to resourcing activities of this sort.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise to support these amendments. There is no question that youth work benefits the community and would be a welcome addition to leisure-time activities. I am hopeful that the Minister can reassure us that no burdensome spending requirement will be imposed on local authorities in order to meet this requirement. While the inclusion of youth work is to be welcomed, we hope it can support inner city sports initiatives such as Inner Cities Cricket, where young people are taught cricket by volunteers, and the National Cricket Council, which has provided cricket bats and red balls.
Lord Adonis: I am grateful for the welcome my amendment has received. We regard it as an entirely appropriate response to the concerns that have been raised, and it was always our intention that youth work should be a key priority in the extension of leisure-time, recreational and positive activities for young people. Having it in the Bill in this way will ensure that it receives that priority.
Now that I understand the noble Lord’s point, I completely accept the connection between youth work and personal, social and health education. I have been fishing around in my papers, but I cannot find the text of Amendment No. 67—someone else must be moving it. I assure the noble Lord, however, that there is nothing the Government are doing in the Bill that in any way lessens the focus of schools on PSHE. On the contrary, we are seeking to promote it steadily in the classroom with a set of measures that I will explain when we come to debate PSHE, including significant additional resources and priority for this area of the curriculum.
With regard to the requirements for key stage 4, PSHE is not yet a statutory subject at any key stage, so the Bill would not make any change that would affect it in that respect. I will look at Amendment No. 67, however, and perhaps the noble Lord and I might speak further about this outside the Chamber. I assure him that there is nothing we are doing in the
12 July 2006 : Column 788
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Adonis moved Amendments Nos. 47 to 48:
(a) “sufficient educational leisure-time activities” which are for the improvement of the well-being of qualifying young persons in the authority's area must include sufficient educational leisure-time activities which are for the improvement of their personal and social development, and (b) “sufficient facilities for such activities” must include sufficient facilities for educational leisure-time activities which are for the improvement of the personal and social development of qualifying young persons in the authority's area.”On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 50:
“( ) a local authority must have regard to the access requirements of qualifying young persons with a disability”The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 50 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 in this group. Amendment No. 50 is intended to ensure that positive leisure-time activities are accessible to disabled young people. Mencap has done some research, and the sad fact is that eight out of 10 young people with a learning disability do not attend any after-school club. Seven out of 10 children and young people with a disability were made to feel uncomfortable at their local leisure centre, and only one in five after-school clubs have any young person with a disability attending.
The amendment is therefore not simply about ensuring that there is adequate wheelchair access; it is not just about physical accessibility. It is also about ensuring that there is appropriate signage or symbols so that disabled people know where everything is. It is to ensure that young people with a learning or physical disability feel there is a safe environment for them.
Such young people are particularly vulnerable to bullying. That often also prevents them from taking part in after-school activities, so they need to feel safe or they will not have the confidence to take part. We might also need to look at the special school transport that often has to be provided for disabled children, to ensure the arrangements made for school transport do not preclude their attendance at after-school clubs or leisure activities during non-school time at leisure centres.
We have a concern that, if this is not clearly stated in the Bill, local education authorities might provide or commission leisure activities that are perfectly suitable for the majority of young people in their area, but not quite good enough for the young people who are most vulnerable and who need access to them—not just physical access, but every other kind of access as well.
12 July 2006 : Column 789
I heard recently from Sir Al Aynsley-Green, the Children’s Commissioner for England, what a scandal it is that in this country we do not ensure that children with disabilities have full access to all the facilities that add so much to the quality of life of able-bodied children. He believes that we lag behind other developed countries in that respect. For that reason we have tabled this amendment again—it was tabled in another place at an earlier stage of the Bill—because it is only when you put a legal duty on a local authority that it feels obliged to direct some of its budget at the problem. The Minister in another place said that he felt it was for local authorities to decide how the budget should be spent and which young people would be prioritised, but we feel that for these most vulnerable young people the duty should be explicitly laid out in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 are probing amendments to seek clarification of the power in the Bill for local authorities to charge for services but also to allow them to provide financial assistance to enable free access for certain deprived young people to facilities and activities in the local area. The amendments also provide us with an opportunity to clarify how these provisions are intended to work with the Youth Opportunity Card and the Youth Opportunity Fund, about which I shall be asking the Minister in a moment.
The amendment was suggested by Barnardo’s, which believes that young people from low-income households and those leaving care should be able to access these facilities and activities free of charge. No child should miss out on these educational and leisure-time facilities to improve their well-being. All these issues come under the five outcomes of the Every Child Matters agenda.
We are probing to clarify the guidance to be given to local authorities on the level of charges for leisure services under this clause, and how these new provisions will interact with the Youth Opportunity Card. Very little detail was given on this issue in another place. The Minister, Phil Hope, said:
- “it is up to local authorities to ensure that financial barriers do not prevent young people from accessing the sort of facilities and recreational opportunities listed in the clause”.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 18/4/06; col. 238.]
Will the Minister confirm that if the costs of provision mean that some children are excluded from activities provided under this clause, under those circumstances local authorities will not fulfil their duty as set out in the Bill to secure access to recreational activities because, by definition, some would not have access to those activities if they were too expensive? Will he explain how the ability to charge for services under the clause fits with the Youth Opportunity Card? Will he give an assurance that the guidance on the circumstances under which local authorities can give financial assistance will include, and stress the needs of, young people from low income families, children in care and care leavers, such as we have specified in our amendment?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |