CLAUSE 9.—(Restrictions on driving by young persons.) (Hansard, 4 July 1930)

§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
I beg to move, in page 13, line 8, to leave out the word "sixteen," and to insert instead thereof the word "fifteen".
This relates to the age at which a young person is entitled to drive a motor vehicle. In the draft Road Traffic Bill of the late Minister the age was 15, and the Bill was circulated to all authorities, and I do not think any objections were raised to the age. The Royal Commission on Road Transport reported that 14 was too low, and they recommended 16. On searching the records, I could not find any evidence of any kind for or against the age of 16. They arbitrarily fixed it without any evidence to suggest that 16 was a proper age. I believe there is not a single case of a boy under 16 being run in for reckless driving. No doubt, parents will object to the age being 15, because they want to put off as long as possible the evil day when they will have to present their son with a motor cycle, but a boy of 15 who has been given a cycle is very proud of it and is not going to risk damaging it.
The younger you can train a person to acquire road sense the better. We all one day or another become motor drivers, and the longer we have driven the more experienced we are. It is of great value that a boy should acquire road sense and understand the dangers of the road, and he will very soon learn. The Bill says he has to satisfy the local authority that, during the six months immediately preceding 1st January, 1930, he was in the habit of driving a motor vehicle. A boy who took out a licence and drove a 2360 motor cycle last August comes up again this August and is told, "You cannot drive a car. You are under sixteen years of age.' And yet he has been driving for a year. That is a thoroughly unfair position in which to put a boy.
It has been the law of the land for 25 years that a boy of 14 could drive a motor cycle. Not a single case can be adduced where a boy of 14 or 15 has been found guilty of reckless driving. A more dangerous age is when he has got to know more about his cycle, when he is starting to court and wants to show off to his lady friends. He wants to show them that his bicycle is better than that of his friend, who may be courting the same girl. There may be a certain rivalry between the two. They are anxious to show off their particular motor cycle at that age. No one would presume that the age at which a person should be entitled to drive a motor cycle ought to be raised to 18 or 19 years, which is a far more dangerous age. I am sure that if there had been a case of a boy of 14 or 15 driving recklessly, there would have been an enormous fuss about it in the newspapers. Attention would have been drawn right and left to the fact that here was a boy of 14 driving recklessly a motor cycle. There would have been an outcry at once. It would have been said that it was ridiculous that a boy of 14 should be allowed to drive. I suggest that it is not an unfair compromise to raise the age, not by two years, but from 14 to 15.

§ Lord ERSKINE
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES
I sincerely trust that the House will not be carried away by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury). I think that his argument is very largely based upon a wrong hypothesis. Happily, there are very few licences at the present time granted to, or applied for by, boys of 14 or even 15. It is not likely, therefore, that you can have statistics of the kind suggested by the hon. and gallant Member in connection with this matter. Take the personal aspect of this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member has already referred to the point. Many of us have sons, some of whom have grown far beyond the age of 14 or 15 or even 2361 16, and there may be hon. Members in the House who have sons of the age of between 15 and 16. Is there a single hon. Member who would care to allow his son of 15 years of age to obtain a driver's licence to drive a motor cycle? I am certain that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman were put in that position, he would do his utmost to prevent anyone connected with him from getting a licence. It must not be forgotten that the licence which would be obtained in the first place would be a licence to drive what is, after all, the most dangerous vehicle upon the road. The Committee in its wisdom—I do not know what the House may do—decided that there should be no speed limit for vehicles of this character. Is the House prepared to allow a boy of between 15 and 16, with very little discretion probably, to be in a position to drive along the roads of the country without any limit to the speed at which he should drive? I am certain that the common sense of the House would agree that 16 years even is too low. I should have been ready to support an Amendment which had put the age at 17 instead of 16, and not at 15 instead of 16.

§ Mr. CHARLETON
As the House generally knows, I have had some experience of the handling of moving bodies, having been an engine driver.

§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
On rails.

§ Mr. CHARLETON
Exactly. My experience is that certainly the age of 16 is too low at which to entrust a person with a fast moving vehicle. We had some experience of this matter during the War, when the age for recruitment for the local department was reduced and they entrusted lads somewhere about the age of 16 to move locomotive engines. We had to be very careful how they did it. Everyone realises what has happened from time to time when unauthorised cleaners have attempted to move locomotives.

§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
They do not own the locomotive, as does the boy his motor cycle. The boy is more careful.

§ Mr. CHARLETON
That may be so, but the hon. and gallant Member carefully excluded from his remarks reference to the temptation to a boy to do all sorts of things on the road. When one sees a 2362 boy of about 15 on an ordinary push-bike one realises that the boy is not quite as careful as the hon. and gallant Member would have us believe. On the other hand, I think that 16 is too low for any person to have charge of a mechanical vehicle on the road, and I hope that the Government will resist the Amendment on that account.

§ Lord ERSKINE
I beg to move, in page 13, line 17, at the end, to insert the words: ( ) A person under eighteen years of age shall not drive a heavy motor car on a road. The Bill as at present drawn provides that a man has to be 21 before he is allowed to drive a heavy motor vehicle upon the road. I observe that there is an Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Col. Howard-Bury) suggesting that the age should be 19. I should think, if the Government would agree to it, that 19 would be a very good compromise. Very serious arguments can be put forward for the alteration of the age. When we were in Committee my right hon. Friend said that he had received a good many communications from the motor manufacturers, and from the Showmen's Guild, in which they said that in their view the age of 21 was too high, and would be detrimental to their business. They gave certain instances which showed that the age of 21 was too high. Personally, I think that the age of 19 is sufficient. I agree that, when you get to a traction engine or other forms of heavy locomotive, it might be proper that the higher age should be put into force, but for this particular type of vehicle the age of 18 would be sufficient. I move my Amendment for these reasons, and in order to obtain the reply of the Government on the subject, to see whether, if they cannot accept the particular age mentioned in my Amendment they are able to accept the age put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend.

§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. SHORT
This Amendment came before the Committee, and a rather long discussion took place. My hon. Friend the Minister of Transport made a very 2363 comprehensive reply upon the matter. In all these matters of age limits, there is room for a division of opinion, but in this case my hon. Friend has followed the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which recommended that no person under 21 years of age should be allowed to drive a heavy motor car or a public service vehicle. The Clause follows that recommendation. I do not think that my hon. Friend is disposed to vary his opinion. Therefore, I shall ask the House to adopt the Clause as it stands.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
We have not had much enlightenment from the Under-Secretary to the Home Department. His reply seems to have been that what the Minister of Transport has said he has said, and we have to take it or leave it. In all seriousness, while we are anxious to get this Bill through as soon as possible, when a serious Amendment such as this is moved it might be treated at greater length by the representative of the Government. This is a matter of great importance to the livelihood of many people. There was no answer given upstairs on this point, namely, that if it was right and proper and not a danger to the public for a private in the Army Service Corps or in the Air Force to drive a heavy motor vehicle at the age of 17 or 18, why should it not be right and proper and not harmful or dangerous to the public that Tom Smith, who is not in the Army or Air Force, should drive a vehicle, although he is under 21 years of age? The answer was that one would be under discipline and the other not. Is it seriously contended that the sergeant sits beside the Army Service driver, holds his hand and practically drives the vehicle? Of course, he does not. These Army drivers drive just as independently as any civilian driver and the argument that it must necessarily be a danger to the public to allow someone to drive one of these vehicles if he happens to be under 21 years of age, falls to the ground.
The Government in their Bill deliberately exclude drivers in the Army or the Air Force under that age, therefore the argument of danger cannot hold water. It is evidently not dangerous for a man under 21 to drive a heavy motor car. I admit that it is probably undesirable for a man under 21 to drive a public service 2364 vehicle, but that is rather a different proposition from driving a heavy motor car on the read. The driver of a public service vehicle must have great experience, becuse he has the lives of perhaps 40 or 50 people in his charge, but he is in a different category from the man who drives a goods vehicle on the road. I do not see why it is necessary that the age should be as high as 21. It is argued that if the age of 17 is the proper age at which a man may be allowed to drive an ordinary light car, possibly the age might be raised a year or two for those who have to drive heavy motor vehicles. Therefore, I think the Amendment of my noble friend is sound. To stick, almost without argument, to the age of 21 seems to me to be a hit unreasonable. Take the case of young showmen under 21 who drive heavy vehicles. They are most reliable young fellows and no accident has happened to them, and it seems hard that they should be prevented from starting on a vocation until they are 21, when at the present time they are driving perfectly safely.
2.0 p.m.
In these days of unemployment the House ought to remember that there are lots of young fellows in factories and motor workshops who may have the laud able ambition of following in their father's footsteps and becoming drivers of heavy motor vehicles. If they are not to be allowed to drive until they are 21, it is hard that they should in the meantime be driven to some other occupation because of this cast iron rule. Before that age they might go on the road with an instructor and learn their job before they are allowed to drive. I give these instances to show that the matter is not quite as simple as the Under-Secretary of State imagines. There are arguments on the side of my noble Friend who has moved the Amendment, and I suggest to the Minister of Transport that even at this 11th hour, before the Bill goes back to another place, some concession might be made in the case of the young fellows for whom we are appealing. In these days of unemployment we do not want to cut them off from getting work.

§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary intended no discourtesy in speaking briefly on this matter, which was dealt with at length in Committee. 2365 One must be careful as to the occupations in which one fixes a minimum age. There may be some point in the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this prohibition raises some difficulty with regard to employment among young men between the ages of 18 to 21. On the other hand, there are compensating advantages in having a restricted number of employments where there is a minimum age of entry, otherwise it would leave it open for a young man to be employed up to a certain age and then he might get dismissed and not be able to get permanent employment elsewhere, because the wages that he would require would be too high. Therefore, I suggest that, on balance, there is not a great deal in the point. It is also argued that it is desirable to lower the age in order to allow for a period of training before a person becomes a full driver. I suggest that that can be met by the growing tendency towards large units of motor transport. There, no doubt, a young man could get previous experience in handling motor vehicles in garages by acting as a cleaner and in other ways, and if the employers want to train him, they could do so, off the highway or on their own private property.
To come to the point as to what is a reasonable minimum age, I would recall to the House the fact that this is an occupation which covers the driving of very large omnibuses and motor coaches, and that a considerable number of human beings depend for their lives upon the responsibility of the driver. I am not sure that is is desirable that such vehicles should be handled by young men between the ages of 18 and 21, who may be a little more lively than responsible upon occasion; not that a young man of 21 is free from liveliness.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
In my speech I excluded, and I think my noble friend definitely also excluded, the possibility of these young fellows between the ages of 18 and 21 driving public service vehicles. We are dealing here entirely with goods traffic.

§ Mr. MORRISON
I am afraid that this Amendment would apply to public service vehicles.

§ Colonel HOWARD-BURY
There is an Amendment which excludes public service vehicles.

§ Mr. MORRISON
When we come to a heavy motor vehicle which is not a public service vehicle, we find that these vehicles can be and are large, cumbrous and weighty vehicles. Anyone who has had experience of the road will know that violent altercations sometimes occur between drivers of private motor cars and drivers of these heavy commercial vehicles. It is not for me to say whether the private driver or the commercial driver is in the right, but there is no doubt that a heavy commercial vehicle can be a very serious and formidable vehicle on the road, and if it is not carefully driven a very great danger to other users of the highway. We have to draw the line somewhere. If a person is not responsible to vote at elections until he is 21—I do not put this forward as a conclusive argument—it seems right that he should not be allowed to drive these heavy vehicles until he has reached the same age. Hon. Members opposite who urged 25 for voting ought to say that he should be 25 years of age. The more we instil into this great industry the feeling that it has a very responsible job on the highways the better for the safety of motor traffic.

§ Sir BASIL PETO
There is one strong argument in favour of the age of 18 which the Minister of Transport has not met. Drivers of heavy locomotives frequently have to take a load to a distant point, stay away that night, coming back the next day. One of the great arguments put forward for continuing the employment of people of the age of 18 is that they will all be unmarried young men; that this is a very suitable form of employment for unmarried young men and is a form of employment not so suitable for married men because they would have to sleep out almost as often as they sleep at home. I am assured by owners of these locomotives that far from being irresponsible and likely to drive carelessly or recklessly these young men seem to have more sense of responsibility and a greater anxiety to drive with care and caution than people who are somewhat older. In view of the strong argument that we should not close this avenue of employment I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision. In regard to public vehicles and heavy motor cars we are quite prepared to accept the position. That requires a different degree of skill 2367 and nerve, and there is a case for the age of 21 in the case of these vehicles, but in regard to heavy locomotives, which go at moderate speed and which have been successfully driven by young men between the ages of 18 and 21, I do not think the case is sufficiently strong to deprive them of this avenue of employment

§ Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). A young man of 18 can drive just as well as a man of 25 or 26, but he has not the same mentality. I drive thousands of miles on the roads every year, and it is the young man of 18 and 19 who blocks the road with his heavy lorry and will not give way. These young men cause more than half the troubles on the road. It is not a question of whether they can drive as well as the older men, it is a question of his outlook, his point of civility, which is much less than that of the married man. As to the married men being kept away from home there are probably many cases in which they would prefer it, after they have been married for some years. The married man would probably feel inclined to spend his evenings in a sober righteous manner, whilst the young man would prefer to go to a cinema and sit up to a late hour, which means that in the morning he is not quite so capable of driving along the road to the convenience of other drivers. I shall certainly support the Minister of Transport.

§ Mr. REMER
The hon. and gallant Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) assumes that everybody over 21 years of age is married. That, of course, is not the case. In putting forward this legislation the Government are dictating to the young man of 18 that he is not to go into this avenue of employment. They are going to deprive many people of a means of earning their living. These young men can also be trained in this way and by the time they reach the age of 21 will be efficient drivers. I shall support the Amendment.

§ Mr. REMER
I beg to move, in page 13, line 32, at the end, to insert the words: and shall be liable on summary conviction in the case of the first offence to a fine 2368 not exceeding five pounds, and in the case of a subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds. It is very wrong to impose the heavy penalties in the Bill when it is obvious that the offences do not deserve them. The penalties in this Clause are for those under 16 who drive a motor cycle, for those under 17 who drive a motor vehicle, and for a person under the age of 21 who drives one of the other vehicles mentioned in the Subsection. A penalty of £20 for a first offence or £50, in the case of a second offence, is too heavy. I see an hon. Member opposite shaking his head. I know what he is going to say. He will say that these are maximum penalties, and that it is left to the magistrates to decide whether these penalties shall be imposed. But is it not obvious that if we allow magistrates to get the idea that the House of Commons has deliberately put these penalties into the Bill, the magistrates will naturally regard these offences as serious offences?

§ Mr. PALIN
I would suggest that the magistrates have as much common sense as Members of this House.

§ Mr. REMER
That is no reason why we should not use a little common sense ourselves. We are making this House look ridiculous by putting in heavy penalties for dealing with what after all are minor offences. An hon. Friend said just now that the law was an ass. I suggest that if we allow this Bill to go through without Amendment the law will be rather more of an ass than it is already.

§ Sir B. PETO
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. KNIGHT
It has been said several times to-day, and it is an observation which is frequently heard in these discussions, that the law is an ass. The law may be an ass, but it is better to be a proper ass than an amateur ass, and any man who requires professional assistance, if he is sensible, will get true assistance and not amateur assistance. The Minister seems to have a very inadequate understanding of the duty of this House in regard to it. I make no apology to him or to any other Minister for detaining the House for two minutes on a matter which is of public importance. We are here to discuss this Bill and we shall perform our duty. If the Minister 2369 had had the patience to wait a little longer he would have had no need to express impatience by a gesture. This Amendment raises a point which has been raised again and again this morning, and I hope that in the interest of our discussions it will not be raised further. The Bill proceeds upon the footing that where offences are committed the Bill should be restricted to stating the maximum punishment for these offences, leaving to the courts the decision as to how much of that maximum punishment should be applied in a particualr case. That is a perfectly reasonable procedure which is common in the administration of justice, and frankly I think that Amendments of this kind, after the explanations that have been given to-day, should not be persisted in.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
I have just listened to one of the most extraordinary speeches I have ever heard. The hon. and learned Member got up and first of all lectured his Minister for something which he was supposed to have done. That left me perfectly cold. The hon. and learned Member then proceeded to state that an Amendment which you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled to be in Order is an improper and absurd Amendment, and that we should pay no attention to it.

§ Mr. KNIGHT
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not desire to misrepresent me. I merely suggested that Amendments which raised exactly the same point later should not be persisted in.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
If the hon. and learned Member will read the Bill he will see that the Amendments deal with different Clauses. We are perfectly in Order in raising the point whenever the Chair decides that our Amendments are in Order. However, I am not going to lecture the hon. and learned Member any more.

§ Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES
It has been assumed by speakers that this Clause would apply to offences by young men of 17 or 18, but the more serious offences that can be dealt with under this Clause are mentioned in Sub-section (4) which says: Any person who drives or causes or permits any person to drive … Obviously, if the owner of a heavy motor vehicle sends out a man of 17 with that 2370 vehicle it is a serious offence which ought to be dealt with by the maximum penalty. Why should we reduce the penalty in such a case to £5 in the first instance? If the Amendment were accepted, it might often be worth while for the owner of a heavy motor car to run the risk of sending out a young man of that age in charge of the car.

§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
It is true that this Amendment in its application is different from a previous Amendment that we discussed, but the principle involved was largely covered by the last discussion, and therefore I hope that the House will now come to a conclusion. I take the view that this is a very serious offence not only on the part of the driver of the vehicle, but that it can be a very serious offence on the part of unscrupulous employers, who might be employing a fair number of people below the age. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) so ably discharged the duties of the Minister in answering the Amendment that it is not necessary for me to say anything more.

§ Sir WILLIAM GREAVES-LORD
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the word "liable" to insert the words "if a person under the age of twenty-one."
I regard this question as one of importance. I agree with an hon. Friend who said that there is no reason whatever for this exemption, so far as it applies to a person of full age who causes or commits any person to drive a motor vehicle in contravention of this Clause. So far as he is concerned I see no reason whatever for limiting the general penalty provided in the Bill. But so far as this Clause is dealing with young persons I think there is a very strong case indeed for limiting the powers of magistrates with regard to such young persons. It is all very well to say that magistrates have as much common sense as Members of this House. On the whole I suppose that this is true, but you cannot argue the common sense of a body of men like the magistrates of this country and try to balance it against the common sense of the Members of this House. What you have to deal with is the fact that in practice time and time again benches of magistrates have been wholly unreasonable 2371 in their treatment of young people. [Interruption.] There is no question whatever about it. One of the most difficult——

§ Mr. ALPASS
On a point of Order. I drew up a question calling into question the decision of a bench of magistrates in my city, and I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, ruled that that was not a question which could be answered in this House. I submit that the hon. and learned Gentleman is now proceeding on the lines from which I have been debarred.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
It is not in order to call in question the decisions of a particular bench of magistrates, but the hon. and learned Member's remarks were of so sweeping a character that they referred to magistrates as a whole.

§ Sir W. GREAVES-LORD
I am very far from calling in question any decision of any particular bench of magistrates. What I am pointing out is that one of the most serious questions which has arisen of recent years in connection with the administration of justice, is that of the extraordinary variations between different benches of magistrates in their treatment of young people. [Interruption.] An hon. Member opposite, who evidently desires to be personal, makes some remark about a particular class of justices. I am not differentiating between classes of justices. I have done as much as any Member of this House to see that young people are not treated in a way which will lead them into the paths of crime and it is for that reason that I intervene now. I think it is eminently desirable, when dealing with a Clause which, in the main, concerns people under 21, that we should take care to put a limit into the Statute which will prevent anything in the nature of extravagant or oppressive sentences. I think if the Mover accepts my proposal and limits the Amendment to cases of persons under 21 it will meet the case and perhaps the Minister will accept the Amendment in that form.

§ Mr. REMER
I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
I do not think that the Amendment, even in the altered form suggested, would be 2372 desirable. It would mean that if a young man, possibly of wealth and substance, who was 20½ years of age or 20 years 11 months was irresponsibly driving a vehicle which Parliament had decided he ought not to handle, he could get away with a fine of £5. Really, the assumption that the courts of summary jurisdiction in this country are instinctively severe and harsh in reference to motor offences will not fit the facts. There are a good many complaints—and some of them if I may say so with respect have some little reason—in the opposite direction. Hon. Members who think that the penalties imposed in these cases may be severe should be comforted by the reflection that the courts will exercise a reasonable discretion, and I think we may be quite sure that they will do so. As the House knows, the courts are not irresponsible and free in the sending of young people to prison nowadays and I am sure that the magistrates will endeavour to make the punishment fit the crime. I hope, although there is an Amendment proposed to the original Amendment, that the discussion on this subject will not gain a new lease of life because we have already discussed the major principle on a previous Amendment, and as we have only another hour and a half left for discussion and as we are getting on to the interesting subject of the speed limit, I hope that the House will come to a decision.

§ Mr. MILLS
May I ask a question? In the case of magisterial decisions on licensing questions affecting local areas any person connected with a brewery is automatically debarred from acting as a magistrate. Is it possible to include in the framework of the Bill a provision to exclude the motoring justice of the peace from adjudicating in these cases?