Law as an agent for change

​The context

The textbook that accompanies this website discussed, in some detail, the different purposes that law might be said to achieve. One of the more controversial purposes of law is to shape and change societal attitudes and to bring about changes in behaviour and morality. These changes sometimes require a change in cultural understanding. Indeed, this is recognised by Members of the House of Commons when debating legislation. For example:

 

“It frequently happens…that the formulation of law sometimes forms a new morality.” (HC Deb 22 March 1979, vol 964, col 1766)

 

These changes can be particularly controversial as the populace may have wildly different views about the issue or there may even be a majority view against legislation in the area. Consider the extent to which Parliament (which is a representative democracy) should pass unpopular laws. Especially laws that create new criminal offences. Or, as it has been put in Parliament:

 

“What precedent is there for the creation of a crime when it is known in advance that its creation is opposed by so large a proportion of the British people? Where else have we ever made a law which we have known before we passed it would be so strongly opposed by the people who sent us here?” (HC Deb 28 July 1981, vol 9, col 1037)

​

Nonetheless, there are times when the Government will still want to legislate for a particular matter, for example where it concerns a matter of safety. It can often be difficult to achieve this sort of change through law alone and legislation is often adopted after other methods of persuasion and influence have failed. Often change of this nature happens in a gradual way. It may be useful to talk through a mundane but albeit important example of this type of change.

 

As you read

This resource is not intended to give you a detailed understanding of this area of law. It is designed to get you thinking about how and why law is made and the tensions that might exist between different interests. Consider the arguments put forward and consider critically whether the legal system should be facilitating the creation of law in these circumstances.

​

The secondary purpose of this resource is to show that even the most mundane and everyday aspects of our lives have a connection to law and a legal history all of their own. With a little bit of research you can uncover the fascinating route by which ideas become law and what this reveals about (changing) societal attitudes. Research skills, on unfamiliar topics, are essential. As you go through this exercise also try to locate and skim-read the legislation (primary and secondary) and debate (through Hansard – the record of parliamentary discussion). This sort of research exercise can be a fun way to pass a few hours and will sharpen your research and analysis skills.

 

 

The issue

Consider the following quotation:

​

“The opponents of the Bill, among whom I count many of my hon. Friends, say that it is an infringement of liberty and freedom.” (HC Deb 22 March 1979, vol 964, col 1762)

 

Think about what sort of Bill may be under discussion? Talk of ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ may suggest something of grand importance. Indeed, this was one (ultimately unsuccessful) of a number of failed attempts to legislate in this area with more than 100 hours of parliamentary time dedicated to the issue. Before reading on, jot down some ideas about the area of law that you think may be in issue.

​

It may surprise you to know that the Bill under discussion in the quotation was to make the wearing of seatbelts compulsory for drivers and those traveling in the front of cars as passengers. To a modern readership, it may seem inconceivable that the wearing of seatbelts was only made compulsory within the UK in the 1980s. Indeed, the very presence of the now ubiquitous ‘3-point’ seatbelt was only mandated from the late 1960s. Within a period of 50 years the situation has changed beyond all recognition and the attitude towards wearing seatbelts has been revolutionised.

​

What follows is a short and incomplete history of the legislation surrounding the compulsory use of seatbelts (thrilling or what?!?). As noted above, the subject matter is important but hardly thrilling but the intention is to use this straightforward example as a vehicle for exploring broader issues. It is very unlikely that you need to know the detail of seat belt legislation in the English Legal System but the skills explored will be useful!

​

The development(s)

The pressure around improving road safety and reducing unnecessary deaths has been around for as long as the first cars rolled onto Britain’s roads. With the increase in car ownership it was in the mid-1960s and early 1970s that Government really focussed on improving the safety of vehicles and on raising public awareness about road safety.

 

Thinking point: how should government and legal systems deal with challenges posed by technological advancement? Particularly when there is little evidence as to the danger or the improvements that may be made? Should the first resort be to binding legal rules?

​

Often, government’s response, is to start to use non-legal methods to convince people to change behaviour.

 

The 1960s – Persuasion and incentives

In light of rising evidence of the safety improvements brought about through the wearing of seatbelts, the UK Governments of the 1960s adopted two responses:

​

• To improve the of safety equipment such as seat belts, and

• To launch public awareness campaigns about their use.

 

The Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1966 introduced a requirement for new vehicles to be fitted with ‘anchorage’ points and by 1967 all new vehicles had to have 3-point belts fitted in the front of vehicles. This increased the opportunity for people to make use of seatbelts and so was a law facilitating people to make a different choice.

​

Thinking point: what are the advantages and drawbacks of this type of approach, as opposed to a simple compulsion to use seatbelts? Are there any other examples of this sort of ‘facilitative’ approach?

 

The 1970s – A decade of failure

Although the increased regulatory approach of the 1960s had some impact on behaviour, it was not seen to be changing attitudes quickly enough. As it was put in one debate:

​

“It is hopeless to demand and useless to expect that persuasion and encouragement will be effective in achieving the desired results. Therefore it is a waste of time to go on and on talking about voluntary persuasion.” (HC Deb 22 March 1979, vol 964, col 1762)

​

And so there were a series of attempts at firmer regulation and a move towards compulsion of seatbelt use (below are just a few examples):

​

• The Road Traffic Bill 1973-74 (which was dropped when the session ended)

• The Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill 1976 (was withdrawn due to their being too few members to hold a meaningful vote and a later iteration of the Bill failed to secure a majority in the Lords)

• The Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill 1979 (was lost due to the General Election)

 

Just from the three discussed above, you can see that a lack of consensus and procedural hurdles meant that the 1970s was a wasted opportunity to reform the law in this area.

 

Thinking point: What might be the objections to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory? How convincing are they? Would it be possible to address some of the concerns in the drafting of the law?

 

The 1980s and 1990s - A breakthrough

The 1980s saw renewed attempts to secure legislation for the compulsory use of seat belts. The breakthrough came by way of amendment to a Government Bill (i.e. the Government did not propose the change itself).

​

The Transport Bill 1981 included a new s27 that, itself, amended the existing Road Traffic Act 1972 by the insertion of a new s33A that empowered the Secretary of State to pass secondary legislation making the use of seat belts compulsory for a trial period (a pilot). Even this amendment was controversial with old arguments about liberty and freedom resurfacing:

​

“This is one of those subjects which stir feelings deeply and genuinely... It touches upon…the individual liberties of our constituents against the remorseless hunger of a State and bureaucratic machine trying to gobble it up.” (HC Deb 28 July 1981 vol 9, col 1033)

​

And being joined by further claims that the evidence of potential lives being saved being “wildly exaggerated”. Nonetheless, the amendment and the Bill was passed and became the Transport Act 1981.

​

This was shortly followed by the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982 and the 3 year pilot was launched in 1983 for drivers and passengers in 1983. There were also a number of exceptions and exemptions (some of which remain today).

​

Thinking Point: Consider the way in which the law edged forward from the 1960s to a limited compulsion as a pilot. Why do you think that a pilot was accepted, as opposed to full and indefinite compulsion? What role do you think the exemptions played in securing agreement for the pilot? How might you go about finding what those exceptions and exemptions were/are?

​

When the pilot ended Parliament was convinced by the impact it had on deaths and so ended the pilot and adopted the scheme indefinitely.

​

In 1989 the mandatory wearing of seatbelts had been extended children in the rear of cars.

​

In 1991 the position was extended even further to all adults travelling in the rear of cars as well.

 

The 2000s and beyond – Are we there yet?

You may be forgiven for thinking that this is the end of the story with the introduction of compulsory use of seat belts for all (subject to the exceptions). However, the law has a habit of evolving and needing refining as more evidence emerges. This is a key reason to focus so heavily on skills – you should not only know the law but also how to find updates on the law.

​

And some of the old arguments don’t simply vanish. For example, the Draft Motor Vehicles (Seat Belts) (Amendment) Regulations of 2005 sought to refine the definition of one of the exemptions for delivery drivers by inserting a ‘distance’ requirement for the exemption to take place. One of the members of the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation commented that the change seem to question whether it was “reasonable that the Government should introduce regulations that will penalise those going about their daily business when there is no safety benefit to be gained?”. And so the arguments about liberty, freedom and the reliability of evidence do not simply go away even when change is achieved.

​

There have been further updates to the requirements for the use of seatbelts (most recently in 2006 when the restrictions on the use of ‘appropriate’ children’s seats were introduced and in 2017 when the use of backless booster seats were banned).

​

Thinking point: can you think of how this law may develop further in the coming years?

 

Concluding thoughts

Think of the many thousands of ways in which our lives are regulated. From the things we take for granted (such as wearing a seat belt) to fundamental sorts of freedoms, the law touches everything we do. Sometimes law reflects consensus and sometimes law tries to create a new consensus. Sometimes legal developments happen all at once and sometimes they happen in a piecemeal and fragmented way with small, incremental gains.

​

As mentioned at the outset, a detailed understanding of the history of seat belt legislation in England and Wales is unlikely to be of particular use to you in your legal studies. Instead, this exercise has been aimed at providing you with insight into how and why legislation is made and how it can be less than straightforward to achieve particular outcomes.

​

​