Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 58A shall be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". Clear the Bar.

Division called.

6.10 pm

Tellers for the Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order 54. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.

Amendment negatived.

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 59:


"CAUSING OR PERMITTING CHILD UNDER 14 TO RIDE A CYCLE ON ROAD WITHOUT PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR
(1) Except as provided by regulations, it is an offence for any person to whom this subsection applies to cause or permit a child under the age of 14 years to ride a cycle on a road unless the child is wearing protective headgear, of such description as may be specified in regulations, in such manner as may be so specified.
(2) Subsection (1) applies to the following persons—
(a) unless the child is cycling in the course of his employment, any person who—
(i) for the purposes of Part I of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12), has responsibility for the child;
(ii) for the purposes of Part II of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 (c. 37), has parental responsibilities (within the meaning given by section 1(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 36)) in relation to, or has charge or care of, the child;
(iii) for the purposes of article 5 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)), has parental responsibilities in relation to the child;
(iv) (in relation to Northern Ireland) has care of the child or is, otherwise than by virtue of article 5 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, legally obliged to maintain the child;
(b) any person other than a person mentioned in paragraph (a) above who is above the age of 15 years and who has custody of or is in possession of the cycle immediately before the child rides it;
 
29 Nov 2005 : Column 160
 

(c) where the child is employed and is cycling in the course of his employment, his employer and any other person to whose orders the child is subject in the course of his employment.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(4) In this section—
"regulations" means regulations under section (Regulations in relation to section (Causing or permitting child under 14 to ride a cycle on road without protective headgear)); and
"road" has—
(a) in England and Wales the meaning given by section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988;
(b) in Scotland the meaning given by section 15(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 54); and
(c) in Northern Ireland the meaning given by article 1(2) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/2994 (N.I.)).
(5) In this section and section (Regulations in relation to section (Causing or permitting child under 14 to ride a cycle on road without protective headgear)) "cycle" means a monocycle, a bicycle, a tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case a motor vehicle."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 59, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 60. Amendment No. 60 empowers the Secretary of State to make the regulations needed for the effective operation of the new clause to be inserted by Amendment No. 59.

These amendments are not the same as those that I moved in Committee. The age at which a child must wear protective headgear has been altered to children under 14, which will bring the law on children riding cycles into line with the law on children riding horses, as laid out in the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Act 1990. In Committee, the Minister said that he was concerned that the compulsory wearing of a helmet would put children off cycling. I am not aware that that happened with riding horses. I rather think that the number of children riding horses and ponies has increased since the wearing of protective headgear became compulsory. Children will still wish to cycle. It gives them a measure of independence that they crave. The Minister said that increased exercise is a major part of the Government's strategy to deal with obesity. I strongly agree that children should exercise, but it must be done safely. The wearing of protective headgear by children is compulsory in Australia, and when I was there earlier this year, I saw crowds of children happily riding around on their bicycles, all wearing protective headgear. It does not seem to have put them off in the least.

I now turn to the question of liability. I have given the matter some more thought. I think the Government's concerns on liability are misplaced, even if the amendments were to be left as they were in Committee. That is because the accused must have caused or permitted the child to have ridden the cycle. In most cases, I imagine that only one person could have caused or permitted it to happen. In a case where a child leaves the house with his parents, not knowing whether he will ride a bike or not, and then borrows a bike from an adult, it is clear who caused or permitted
 
29 Nov 2005 : Column 161
 
it to happen. On the other hand, if the parents allow him out without a helmet, it is also clear. If the child leaves the house with a helmet on, and then takes it off, the parents cannot be said to have caused or permitted it to happen, unless they told him that he could remove it. Nevertheless, I have altered the amendments by leaving out the provision relating to the ownership of the bike. I have also provided for employers by requiring that the cycling must be in the course of the child's employment. I beg to move.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment. I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said. Her Majesty's Government are encouraging children and young people to cycle through their Safer Routes to Schools initiative and their advice to local authorities. They wish more children to cycle, for understandable reasons. But with that encouragement comes a responsibility for the Government to take all reasonable measures to protect children from harm. Yesterday, I spoke with a paediatric nurse who is caring for a 13 year-old who fell from his bike, smashed the front of his head and damaged his frontal lobes. He is now unable to manage his emotions and is subject to outbreaks of rage. A friend of mine at school, who I used to cycle with, came off his bicycle. He called me to the hospital, and when I arrived, he had forgotten that he had called me. He experienced concussion. His personality changed following his injury. Some years later, he developed a bipolar emotional disorder—manic depression—that may be associated with that trauma.

The overwhelming case is that helmets protect individuals from injury to the brain and that they are particularly effective in protecting children from brain injury. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, we are all concerned that children should take more exercise. I believe that obesity in children has increased by one-fifth in the past 10 years. The evidence about whether the introduction of cycle helmets in other countries has discouraged or encouraged children and adults to cycle is not clear either way. I remember visiting a Halfords store this summer and seeing a child with his mother. She was speaking to his father on her mobile phone, asking whether they should buy the larger bike. The message from the father was that they should get the larger bike. The boy was jumping up and down with joy at the prospect of buying a new bicycle. When I look in the park and observe children, I have to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, that bicycles are so attractive to children that it seems very unlikely that a significant number of them will be put off simply because they have to wear a helmet.

On the question of enforcement, when the Home Office was discussing this, a two-year plan was proposed. The first year would focus heavily on education, promoting bicycle safety and the wearing of cycle helmets. The second year would involve law enforcement officers. When they saw groups of children, they would warn them that in a year's time, it would be against the law for them not to wear a cycle helmet. Then, once the law was put in place, letters
 
29 Nov 2005 : Column 162
 
would be sent to parents asking them to purchase a helmet and send a receipt to the office to prove it, or else they would receive other warnings.

Twenty states in the United States, Norway, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as well as several other countries, have introduced these laws. The Government are actively encouraging children and young people to cycle more. For understandable reasons, we have a low usage of cycles in this country. We have a responsibility to take reasonable measures to protect children from harm. When parents and children are consulted about this, they favour a law to make cycle helmets mandatory.

The Bill will provide that careless drivers who kill with no intention to do so can be sentenced to a maximum of five years' imprisonment. The Government have set aside 150 prison spaces to cater for them. Those people are harming adults and children unwittingly so, with the greatest respect to the Minister, it seems somewhat ironic that the Government are encouraging children and young people on to the streets on bicycles without taking all reasonable precautions to keep them from harm. I look forward to the Minister's response.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page