DRIVING TEST EXAMINERS

HC Deb 02 April 1953 vol 513 cc1415-35

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)

My subject has evoked a good deal of publicity. As I see it, by this Adjournment debate we should try to achieve three things. First I hope it will convince all people in the country that a genuine attempt will be made to make them feel they are being dealt with justly. The second thing I hope will be achieved by this debate is that motorists will be convinced their position is appreciated, and that when they submit themselves for a test it will be governed by straightforward rules and not fancy tricks. Third, that the driving test examiners will feel any slur which they may think was cast upon their name has been removed. We should, however, make it perfectly clear that the driving test examiners serve the public and are not served by the public. Their interests are secondary to the interests of the public in this matter.

I received a letter from the vicar of a parish in my constituency. The Minister has a copy of the letter. I maintain that when such a constituent complains in the way he did it is reasonable that his Member of Parliament should write to the Minister about it. I wrote to the Minister a full week before I asked the Question during Question time. I told the Minister that the Question related to the case of the vicar, and so it should have been no surprise to him if in supplementary questions on 16th March reference was made to the Rev. Kenneth Fawcett.

I wish also to make clear my own position. When I received the vicar's original letter I wrote to him and warned him about the publicity which would follow. I asked whether he would reflect further on whether he wished me to proceed with the case. It was on receipt of his second letter that I proceeded, and I hope, there- fore, I shall be acquitted of any suggestion that I have handled this matter in an irresponsible manner.

The Minister said he did not keep statistics of driving tests revealing whether applicants were "ploughed" on the first, second, third or fourth attempt. Since then I have learned that 40 per cent. of the people who undergo driving tests are failed, and that refers to whether they are being tested for the first, second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth time. Those are all the statistics which are kept. After reflection, I still think that there is no better test than the one I posed originally in my Question about the sort of statistics needed to establish this claim.

I wish to take up one matter rather strongly with the Parliamentary Secretary because our relationship was quite friendly in this matter. I wish to know why he should hand out a "stooge" Question to the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus), a written Question, when it was known that this debate was to take place—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite)

On a point of order. Is it in order to make the implication against my hon. and gallant Friend that the Question was a "stooge" Question planted anywhere? Secondly is there anything wrong in circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a reply to an oral Question not reached during Question time?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

There is nothing out of order in circulating a reply. It is not in order to refer to a "stooge" Question, but that is a matter of comment about which I have no knowledge.

Mr. Pannell

Well, then, shall I say that that Question was an inspired Question from the Department. It was not a Question which the hon. Member put of his own volition. I should have thought that the Minister could have waited until this debate today. He could have stopped the Question rather than put out a written answer on which obviously I could not put a supplementary question. We all know that if a Member gives notice of his intention to raise a matter on the Adjournment Mr. Speaker then stops any further supplementary questions. That is a normal rule of the House.

Mr. Braithwaite

On a point of order. This is a very serious allegation. May I again put it to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that Mr. Speaker did not circulate the allocations for today's Adjournment until late on Monday last. The hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North put down a Question on Friday last which he believed would be answered on Monday, when the House did not sit. He was perfectly in order in putting down that Question. The allocations for today's Adjournment were not published until later.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have no knowledge of the facts. I do not think that there is a point of order for me to decide.

Mr. Pannell

I take it that I am in order in making my complaint in this debate. I have had conversations with the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North. I know how that Question emanated. The point I make is that the reply to the Question on 31st March was an overstatement of the facts. It has tended to cloud the issue in the Press. I make my protest at the beginning of my speech. I will now attempt to prove my case.

By Tuesday the Minister knew that this debate was to take place. It would have been within his competence to have withdrawn the Question.

Mr. Braithwaite

The Minister?

Mr. Pannell

I am making my case. The hon. Gentleman will take plenty of time later, as he usually does, to reply. The answer made by the Minister was: I have had an inquiry made on the spot by a senior officer of my Department, together with the Chief Driving Examiner, and find there is no evidence whatsoever to support these allegations. The Rev. Kenneth Fawcett, the Vicar of St. Mary's, Leeds, whose letter was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), when confronted with the gravity of his assertions unreservedly withdrew any suggestion of a ' racket' and confined his complaint to his own individual test."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1953; Vol. 513. c. 140.] I am sorry, but that report of what took place varies from the Departments' note of a meeting between Mr. Fawcett and their officials, from which I now quote: Mr. Fawcett said that he would like to make it clear that he had never alleged that there was ' graft' in connection with driving tests or that examiners were acting improperly in their relations with driving schools. His argument was that the tests he had experienced were capricious tests not based on a proper appreciation of ability to drive a car; individual examiners had personal and peculiar views about driving which resulted in unfair tests. That is very different from what the Minister suggested in his answer.

The literal interpretation of the word "graft" is the making of illicit profits or dishonest gains especially in connection with political and municipal business. The word "racket" does not appear in a modern dictionary. It is an American colloquialism, but Members can draw their own conclusions. I suggest that in this sense the word "racket" can be used only in the plural, and that Mr. Fawcett in using it inferred that somebody besides himself was concerned. The Minister's answer was an overstatement.

Another point is that the inquiry did not attempt to establish all that had been said. There were other matters for consideration. It may be remembered that Mr. Fawcett also said this: Between the tests I took a course at a motor school and the driving instructor, Mr. Maurey, of the Leeds School of Motoring, said that in his opinion my control of the car and road sense were all that could be desired. When I determined to write this letter to you I asked him to put this in writing but when he knew for what purpose I required it he said he would say it verbally but would not put it in writing for if it was found out by the Ministry of Transport examiners they would fail his pupils right and left and he would lose his means of livelihood. He also strongly advised me against carrying the matter any further because, ' If I touch those people I shall never get through the test.' That was part of the complaint, but the official inquiry is silent on that point. It is well known that representatives of the Minister met representatives of the Leeds School of Motoring. What is the answer on that? Although the Rev. Kenneth Fawcett caused a spark, and whatever explanations are given in the debate, the case against driving examiners does not rest on him alone. This is a matter of broad public policy which has provoked for me a considerable mail.

The Parliamentary Secretary knows that I spent yesterday morning in his Department and, as fully as possible, I told his officials the course I intended to pursue today, so at least I have tried to treat him fairly. I rest my case upon the second paragraph of the letter to the Minister on 10th March in which I said: His letter does disclose what is generally common knowledge up and down the country, that there is a close liaison between certain motoring schools and driving test examiners. The idea has grown up that unless one goes to a certain motoring school, one never passes out at all. The driving test examiners are, in the main, far too talkative importing all sorts of fancy ideas into what should be a practical test. I stand by the original statement. I shall attempt to bring such evidence as I can to prove the point. It is not sufficient for the Minister to shoot down the Rev. Fawcett in flames. He will have to conduct his investigation over a much wider field.

I want to deal with one or two letters which have been sent to me. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that between now and the time when he answers the debate he might think whether or not it would be a good idea to take the whole of my mail and Mr. Fawcett's and have a spot cheek on these people who have been prepared to write about this matter. The check would have to be conducted by somebody outside his Department. The audit department cannot audit itself.

I have here a letter from South Leeds —from the city in which the original complaint arose. It is curious because of its opening sentence, which says: I have passed my test first time but nevertheless …. Obviously the writer has no axe to grind. He says: I had some training from my business partner and a relative and then went to a school for a couple of lessons before the test. The instructor prevailed on me to have my second lesson an hour before the test and en route we stopped at the examiner's office (outside) so that he could find out who was to examine me … There is the relationship— He got back into the car and said he had not found out but later we were stopped by a car from another school and he gained the information that I was to be taken by the chief examiner and I was informed that this individual was very crochety. When I reported for the test I noticed on the ' order sheet' of my examiner that my name had been substituted for another. I can understand that. The other person may have dropped out for some Teason— Luckily I punctured after about 300 yards and had another test arranged for seven days later when I passed in a quarter of an hour. I received another letter from Dagenham, which says: I entered for my test in November, 1951— and failed. A few days later I had a letter from the Progressive School of Motoring, Aveley, offering to help me pass my test the next time. Who told the school of motoring?

I am suggesting that there is a deep-seated suspicion in the country about these things, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. There is another constituent of mine who approached me personally about it, and to whom I said "Look here, you had better write to me, and you had better understand that you had better not write to me unless you are prepared for your letter to be used."

After that warning, this constituent wrote me this letter: My experience is as follows: In October, 1952, I had my first driving test, and failed. The reason given was that I gave too many signals and too long. A month later, I had my second test, and, during the test, I said to the Examiner "You will notice that I am driving at the near side of the road, because the previous Examiner had said that I drove on the crown of the road too much.' He immediately told me that I should not have said anything to him about the first Examiner, and this would probably spoil my chance of passing. I therefore pointed out to him that I thought he would expect me to tell him of my failures, whereupon I would have tried to correct them. From that point, the conversation became heated, for then I knew, although I had not completed the test, that I would fail. I did. But not until he had given me a thorough examination on the Highway Code. He then suggested, in a very subtle way, that I should take lessons from someone who knew the finer arts of driving, such as the School of Motoring. After about six lessons, I asked him what he thought of me now. He replied by saying ' When is your next test? ' I told him it was 10 days hence, so he said ' Well, don't lose any sleep over it; you will be all right.' On the morning of the test, I had about half an hour in the city, and then we went for my test. Before we went into the office, my instructor said to me ' Unless you break the law in your test, you will pass.' I did. But how did he know? I will leave you to guess. A gentleman from Abingdon, in Berkshire, said: I went to the Ministry of Transport office, accompanied by my school instructor, and we were met outside by Mr. So-and-So "— I shall not mention his name, because the Minister would probably like to have it— and he asked the instructor ' What's the weather like?' The instructor replied ' Not so bad.' I found it hard to believe that, at 10.30 in the morning, he could not have formed his own opinion about the weather, which was quite good, and, in fact, I concluded that, for some reason, a code was used to enable the examiner to gain knowledge of the pupil's driving ability. [Laughter.] It is all very well for the Minister to laugh, but he will have to bear in mind that these people who write these letters are not untruthful.

The Minister must not assume that what these people are saying is untruthful. It may be wrong, but they are not deliberately perjuring themselves in writing these letters. A man in Manchester expresses the opinion that an examiner might feel liverish, hold a grudge against any race or creed, or he may have had a row with his wife, and that passing the test depends entirely on the goodness of his heart, and not on the pupil's ability to drive.

I can only say that I can remember on one occasion speaking to the chauffeur of one of the learned judges, at assize, and he told me:. "If anybody gets across the old man today, he will get 10 years," and a man did get 10 years that day. Naturally, that is not evidence, but it merely shows the sort of feeling that exists. It all rests on the basis that these people believe that these things are true.

Again, here is a letter from a professor in Exeter: My driving instructor told me after my first failure that professional people always seemed to need longer practice than working-class. Those who took longest to learn were the educated people, doctors, nurses, university people, clergymen and solicitors. It has occurred to me that it is very curious that the most intelligent people seem to be failed most. Could it be that they have the money to go on paying for driving lessons and are kept at it? One of my university colleagues paid £25 in driving tuition before he got through at the third attempt. I paid out £23 all told and passed at the third time. These are university people and professional people, and I hope nobody suggests that this letter is deliberately mendacious. He goes on: Attractive girls and women get through very easily, I understand. If they analysed failures in relation to (1) sex and age, (2) income and (3) social class, some very interesting revelations would turn up. A lady from Stoke-on-Trent writes: The first thing the examiner asked her was ' Who taught you to drive? ' He advised her to take a course of lessons with a driving school. She took a course of lessons, and the first time her tutor took her out he said 'You are a splendid driver.' He admitted that she was fully competent, and spent about half the time he usually did with pupils. At the next test, he took her down for it instead of her brother. This time, the tester did not keep her out long, nor did he ' put her through it' half as much as had been done before. Needless to say, she passed. A university lecturer from Nottingham writes to me: Though the instructor told me they would fail me the first time, and probably the second (which seems customary), I was astounded. Finally, some random statements between ourselves. ' A pretty face goes a long way with the examiners. A long face helps to fail a man under test—or a naturally somewhat worried or harassed look (in my case a frustrated look) in the case of an elderly man'. After all, the Minister will appreciate that I have had a very considerable mail, and he has had enough experience as a back bencher, when he used to assail the last Government, to know that people did write letters to him, and that is a point of which he must be sufficiently aware. He must know that, although these people may be misguided and mistaken, they do write letters to their Members of Parliament, and if they write letters like these after being warned, as I have warned these people, that their letters will be used, we must assume that they are honest witnesses.

If there are enough honest witnesses who really believe that something is wrong—whether they are right or not— the matter should be inquired into. The Minister always rides off with talk about integrity. We expect our public servants to be honest. What sort of people are we to get in this country if we are always to be harping on this question of integrity? Generally, we refer to one another in this House as hon. Members, because we always believe that what we say we believe to be true. If we accept that in the one case, we should accept it in this case.

What does the Minister really think about his driving test examiners? They get between £410 and £550 a year, and there is no equal pay between men and women. Is this enough for integrity? Is it enough to keep them above corruption? The Minister, of course, had a chance of answering these questions when these people had a pay claim before the National Arbitration Tribunal. If I was fixing the rates I should fix them between £500 and £550 and leave it at that.

The Minister asked for some opinions which have been expressed about this, and here are some of the opinions expressed in a statement by the Ministry of Transport on a claim for revised salary scales for the grades of chief driving examiner, supervising driving examiner and driving and traffic examiner: Driving examiners continuously employed in testing duties tended to exaggerate the possibility of their work subjecting them to nervous strain. Regarding tests, we find this: The Acts and Regulations are, of course, concerned with many other subjects than traffic examining, and examiners need to know only the effect of small portions of them. Then, they sum it all up with this opinion: The duties of the traffic examiner grade call for qualifications which are either reasonably commonplace (the ability to drive well and considerable experience of driving, which are being acquired by a wide and ever widening section of the community) or such as are within the competence of an average Clerical Officer. The examiner has to decide whether the candidate passes or fails, and must immediately issue a certificate of competence or a statement of reasons for failure. That certificate is a very important thing to many people.

I have referred to the question of the local driving schools and their relations with the examiners, and I have a long letter here from a very well-known business house in Leeds supporting this claim. There is nothing political about this. I still feel that something is wrong. Incidentally, I would say that, possibly with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), who may be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I have had as much experience of professional driving as any hon. Member.

How much is spent on learning to drive at driving schools? Some people have written to me saying that they have spent as much as £40 in this way. I suggest that the Minister really ought to look at this matter, and that a further regulation should be brought into force which would keep the driving schools rather further apart from the matter of driving tests than they appear to be at the moment.

The present system of driving test examinations was started in 1934 during a period of savage unemployment, and this was an attractive job to all sorts of good garage foremen and people of that sort. I suggest that at that time the calibre of the examiners was a little higher than it is now. How are the driving examiners now recruited? I agree that they are recruited quite openly. The job attracts a large number of ex-policemen. That is not a bad thing, because policemen are concerned with traffic examinations and have usually a way with them.

In a time of full employment, I certainly am not going to make out a case against the employment of ex-policemen, but what sort of experience has an ex-policeman of driving commercial vehicles? People who have driven double-decker and 10-ton vehicles know that the whole technique is completely different from that employed in driving light vehicles. I suggest that many of the other people employed as driving examiners are recruited from driving schools, and that that is part of the "hook up" about which we are complaining today. Driving examiners were not placed under the local authorities in 1934 because it was thought that they might be subject to local pressure. I quite appreciate that. Who checks up on them from time to time?

No passenger is allowed in the vehicle when a driving test is being carried out unless he clearly undertakers, as of course he should, that he will not interfere with the test. I can give evidence of examiners who very strongly object to having passengers, but one of the points made in the case of the Rev. Kenneth Fawcett is that had he wanted to he could have taken somebody with him on the test.

Quite recently the suggestion was before this House that the salaries of judges should be raised by £1,000 a year free of tax, and many hon. Members opposite agreed with that suggestion. But driving test examiners are also judges. On their integrity and ability rests the consideration of road safety and of public danger, and, more important still, the preservation of justice as between man and man. A citizen's livelihood may depend upon the capacity or the caprice of a driving test examined, but in their case there is no jury at all.

No one who has read the sort of mail which I have received can be blind to the degree of distress which is often caused through a person failing to pass the driving test. At the same time, I should be the last to attempt to stigmatise a whole body of public servants merely on the ground of this case or on the ground of the large number of letters I have received on the subject. I believe that there are certain elements on the administrative side as well as certain individual examiners who fail to appreciate the conception of high integrity which should be brought to this job. I hope I have said enough to show that there is considerable public uneasiness about the matter which calls for a speedy public examination.

2.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite)

I rise now, first, because of the gravity of the charge made against driving examiners which requires a reply at some length, and, secondly, because we are somewhat behind the schedule which you, Mr. Speaker, laid down for us for the matters to be raised on the Adjournment today.

On 16th March, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) put a supplementary question to me in the following terms: Will the hon. Gentleman consider making this information available? That is, the information for which he asked about failures at the first attempt. As he will appreciate, I have already sent a letter to his Department indicating that a vicar of one of the parishes in my constituency has described the present arrangements in the City of Leeds as a 'racket.' Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of my mail, I have reason to believe that this sort of thing is fairly widespread?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1953; Vol. 512, c. 1821.] "This sort of thing," of course, being the racket.

I am glad to have this opportunity of saying a few words on this subject which, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly points out, has raised a good deal of public disquiet, disquiet stimulated by certain events which I shall now relate to the House. The driving tests were instituted under the Road Traffic Act, 1934, and. therefore, except for the war period, have been a feature of our national life for some 18 years.

To the best of my knowledge—and I have made some research—this is the first occasion during that period on which these tests have been debated in the House, either on the Adjournment or through other procedural machinery, a fact which, I suggest, goes to show that they are, on the whole, a satisfactory instrument for road safety which, after all, is their primary object. The whole essence of the driving test is to have people on the roads who drive safely, and as such, I suggest, they are generally accepted by public opinion.

In view, however, of certain allegations made by the Vicar of St. Mary's, Leeds, the Rev. Kenneth Fawcett. who complained recently that the driving test was a "racket." and whose views were repeated here at Question time on 16th March by the hon. Member for Leeds, West. I think it as well to have this question ventilated so that a body of men and women who carry on a difficult and often thankless task with integrity and tact can be cleared of the wholly unjustifiable criticism that they are engaged in a "racket."

It is this of which the Vicar of St. Mary's, Leeds, complained. He stated in his letter to the hon. Gentleman, which was given wide publicity in a number of the national daily papers, that—and here I quote the letter and leave it to hon. Members to draw their own conclusions as to what it is intended to convey: After four years spent as a resident full-time chaplain to H.M. Prisons, Wandsworth and Armley, I think I can spot a racket when I see one. Whoever invented the three-card trick was a babe in arms compared with the person who laid down the conditions of the driving test What can that convey other than the most wounding allegation of corrupt conduct? When I saw the publicity which this unjustified statement commanded, I immediately arranged to send one of the senior officers from the headquarters of the Ministry of Transport, together with the chief driving examiner, to Leeds, when the matter was discussed most fully with the Rev. Kenneth Fawcett, who then withdrew unreservedly his remarks about corruption. He said in the discussion that he would like to make it clear that he had never alleged that there was graft in connection with driving tests or that driving examiners were acting improperly in their relations with driving schools. He maintained that his criticism was in connection with his own case, in which he claimed that he had twice been unfairly failed.

Frankly, I find these two statements difficult to reconcile. I think that the right thing to do, however, is to accept the withdrawal while, at the same time, expressing my astonishment, because I cannot do otherwise, that a clerk in holy orders of the Church of England should have made such grave and grievous allegations merely because he felt that he ought to have been classed as a competent driver.

The hon. Member referred to a Mr. Maurey who was quoted by the Rev. Kenneth Fawcett in a letter of great length which, owing to the lateness of the hour, I will not quote now but which is familiar to the hon. Member and myself. During the visit of our official to Leeds Mr. Maurey described the allegations made as ridiculous and added that he had no complaints whatever about the fairness of the examiner. He also denied that Mr. Fawcett had had a course of lessons at his school. On the contrary, Mr. Fawcett had had only two lessons and had exhibited during them faults which, apparently, he reproduced in some degree during his driving test.

The direct allegation against Mr. Maurey was not dealt with at the conference at Leeds; I admit that at once. But we have since spoken to him on the telephone and he categorically denies that any such conversations as described by Mr. Fawcett ever took place. I think, therefore, that we can leave the reverend gentleman who skedaddled from the stricken field at the first whiff of grape-shot to the onerous task of reconciling his conduct with his conscience on the eve of the Easter festival. I am satisfied that there is no support for the suggestion that the driving examiners are corrupt.

Mr. Pannell

If I may intervene, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least separate me from my constituent in this regard. I think that I have been quite above board in my statement and I made it perfectly plain during my speech—and I sharply pulled up my speech in referring to what happened—that I made no allegation of corruption.

Mr. Braithwaite

Nor did I say so.I was dealing with Mr. Fawcett. I will break off as abruptly as the hon. Member did and get on with another matter.

Another supplementary question was asked on 16th March by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell), who occupies an important official position on the benches opposite as a representative of the usual channels. He asked me whether I was aware that in Leeds, Newcastle and other areas there was a fairly general opinion that there seems to be something 'phoney' about it. He added: Will he have a look at the percentage of failures? …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1953; Vol. 512, c. 1822.] I wrote to the hon. Member saying that I should be quoting this and, with his usual courtesy, he rang me up to say that he could not be here today owing to his having an engagement in his constituency. But he gave me leave to say that he never for one moment suggested or intended to suggest that the word "phoney" implied that there was something suspicious and not above board with regard to the conduct of driving examiners. He merely thought it odd that so many people faded at the first attempt. I will deal with that point later in my remarks.

These ladies and gentlemen examiners are permanent, pensionable civil servants, recruited after open examination, with special qualifications as to driving ability and experience in driving. Their work is closely watched by supervising and senior examiners. We are, therefore, in a good position to detect at an early stage whether there happens to be any danger of any examiner getting into trouble.

I have been into this matter most carefully. I was greatly disturbed by the whole incident, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West would have been if he had been in my position. I can say with conviction that there is no more upright body of men and women in this country dealing with a difficult task than our driving examiners, and, like their colleagues in the public service, they are, have been, and will continue to be honest and fearless in their work.

The hon. Member for Leeds, West will not be surprised to learn that I have heard from the trade union which looks after these ladies and gentlemen. It is not impossible that he may have had a communication from Mr. C. E. Redhead, General Secretary of the Society of Civil Servants. This is what Mr. Redhead said in his letter to me: As the representative staff organisation of Driving and Traffic Examiners of the Ministry of Transport, this Society has been seriously perturbed of late concerning a number of recent references to members of the grade in the House of Commons and the resultant Press publicity. I refer in particular to the Parliamentary Questions of Mr. Norman Dodds, M.P.. on 15th December and 26th January, and of Mr. T. C. Pannell, M.P., on the 16th instant and the subsequent exchanges in the House. I feel it my duty to draw your attention to the fact that there is in consequence widespread indignation and dissatisfaction among the officers concerned, who, as you will appreciate, have no means of publicly correcting any misapprehensions that this recent publicity may have aroused. There remains a strong feeling of resentment and frustration and the uneasy feeling that public confidence may be undermined to a degree that is not only unfair to the officers concerned, but which can be an administrative embarrassment. I now turn to the more important part of this debate which concerns the driving test itself. I propose, in the first instance, to explain how these tests are organised and the way in which they are supervised, as I think that this will clear up a number of doubts which exist in the minds of hon. Members and which have been raised. I also propose, at the end of my remarks, to refer to a few complaints about the driving test and this may perhaps deal with other points that are in the minds of hon. Members.

The prospective candidate for a driving test is told in very general and simple terms of what it consists when he first applies for a provisional licence. He is sent a form, D.L. 68, a copy of which I have in my possession, which should be a useful introduction to the test. When he has had sufficient training for the test he applies for one at the local office of the Ministry of Transport traffic areas.

Great Britain is divided for driving test purposes into 11 such areas in which there are 17 supervising examiners, 71 senior examiners and 381 examiners. The men and women work at 130 regular test centres and, from time to time, at 175 occasional centres. They work under carefully drawn instructions and the arrangements for the test are such that no candidate ever knows beforehand which examiner is to take the test.

I will now read extracts from the instructions, which, I think, show the essentially practical and sensible approach which we require the examiners to adopt. The instructions state: In applying the test examiners should remember that in most cases candidates will have had only a limited experience of driving and most of them will not have driven without either a 'nurse' or an instructor. It would, therefore, be unreasonable to expect the degree of skill and road-sense which might be displayed by a driver with years of experience. It must also be remembered that many candidates will display a degree of nervousness when driving under the eye of an official examiner from which they might be free when driving alone or with friends. … The main object of the test is to ensure that the candidate is well grounded in the basic principles of safe driving, and is sufficiently practised in them to be able to show, at the time of the test, that he is a competent driver and is not a source of danger to himself or to other road users, and is likely to become a fully qualified driver with more experience. The standard of driving of a candidate who is given a certificate of competence should be such that the examiner would be willing to accompany him, as a passenger in the back seat, on an ordinary journey.… Hon. Members will have noted the stress which the instructions lay on competence to drive safely. I should also mention that in another part of the instructions it is stated that: … a candidate who shows a lack of courtesy or consideration for other road users should not be regarded as a competent driver. This is an important matter which candidates often overlook.

It is often said by foreigners that there is in this country a much higher standard of courtesy and consideration for other road users than elsewhere. If this is true it is no doubt due partly, at least, to the emphasis we place on this point in the driving test.

Another important point in the instructions is that all routes used for test must be carefully chosen to avoid serious inequality of conditions as between one candidate and another. Every hon. Member knows that with so many examiners and so many driving test centres the problem of maintaining a uniform standard throughout the country is a serious one. It is part of the job of senior examiners and the full-time job of the supervising examiners and the chief driving examiner himself to maintain, as far as possible, a standard test and uniform standard of competence for the grant of pass certificates, and there are careful instructions to that end which I should have quoted had I had time.

I am told that supervising examiners probably accompany examiners on 700 tests every year, not specially chosen in any way, and spread over the whole of the staff in each area. The method used is for the supervising examiner to mark the candidate's faults simultaneously with the examiner and, after the test is over, to compare notes with the examiner. The chief examiner has the onerous task of co-ordinating the standards throughout Great Britain and spends a great deal of his time travelling around from one centre to another with that object. By seeing individual examiners conducting tests in all sorts of conditions, he is able to determine whether the tests are being conducted both in the letter and the spirit of the instructions.

Uniformity in method does not mean that every area should show the same percentages of passes and failures. In any form of examination one finds differences in the personal characteristics, aptitudes and perhaps foibles of those who mark our papers or put us through our tests. However, I would like to deal with the suggestion made so widely that everybody is failed the first time on principle. Knowing that this debate was pending I had a test check made in one area for the month of February, before the Question was put down and before this matter received publicity. In that area the figures show that 55 per cent. of those who passed did so at their first attempt. I think the hon. Gentleman said that 40 per cent. failed or, in this case 45—

Mr. Pannell

A national figure.

Mr. Braithwaite

These are for a certain area taken in February. Candidates who fail receive a statement of failure, on the back of which the examiner marks the points to which the candidate should give particular attention before he takes the next test. The examiner is instructed not to enter into a discussion with the candidate who has just failed about his driving performance, as this may lead to a good deal of difficulty on both sides. The wisdom of this is shown by our experience with Mr. Fawcett. Experience has shown that candidates who have failed are seldom in a frame of mind, at that time anyhow, to accept advice from the examiner who is responsible for that failure. The yellow ticket, as it is often called, is intended to assist candidates to improve their driving before coming up again, which they cannot do until a month has elapsed from the date of their failure.

As 'regards one criticism, which Mr. Fawcett seemed to have in mind when he wrote to the hon. Member for Leeds, West and which has been suggested again this afternoon, namely, that a candidate does not pass unless he goes to a driving school. Neither Mr. Fawcett nor the hon. Member has produced a thread of evidence to substantiate any suggestion that driving schools have special influence which they can bring to bear—I think it was called a "hook-up" this afternoon. Nevertheless, if a candidate goes to a good driving school, he is likely to be taught to drive in the right way and to avoid common pitfalls, and is, therefore, a more competent driver. On the other hand, we know of driving schools which are not good and their results in the test are obviously not so favourable.

There is a second common criticism to the effect that there are two other reasons why candidates fail the first time. The first is because the examiner wants to keep his job and will be regarded as incompetent unless he fails a considerable proportion of the candidates The second is far more interesting—indeed, I see my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the bench beside me— that they are failed in order to stimulate the Revenue because there is a 10s. fee for taking the test.

Mr. Pannell indicated dissent.

Mr. Braithwaite

These things are said and I am here to refute them. Both of those criticisms are blatantly and palpably absurd, precisely because the examiner is a permanent and established civil servant, whose position does not and cannot depend upon the number of candidates coming forward because he has other duties to perform. Secondly, let me disclose the horrid fact to the House that each test now costs appreciably more than the fee of 10s., which is the maximum at present authorised under the Road Traffic Acts.

The Government are, therefore, making a loss on each test and it would be in their financial interest to reduce the number of tests rather than to increase them. Those who make that complaint are putting ideas into the head of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, not to mention the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at an extremely vulnerable period of the year.

I think I am right in saying that a large number of the complaints, when boiled down to essentials, amount to little more than an indignant assertion that the candidate knows he is a good driver and that the decision that he has failed can, therefore, be attributed to only one of three things: the incompetence of the examiner, the prejudice of the examiner or even the corrupt character of the examiner. This attitude is engendered by the too commonly held belief that good driving is an accomplishment which can readily be picked up given only average intelligence and a modicum of practice.

The fact is that good driving is an art involving a combination of ability to handle the vehicle, knowledge of the correct procedure to follow when manoeuvring in a wide variety of road and traffic situations, and the ability to put into practice that knowledge and the precepts of the Highway Code. The learner who sets out to practise driving and undergo the test without first taking steps to ensure that he is working on the right principles of safe driving is reasonably sure to fail.

Having now picked up 10 minutes of the late starting period, let me say, finally that I do not want to give the House the impression that we have a lot of complaints about the driving test, which would appear to be the case after listening to the hon. Member for Leeds, West. We received less than one in 1,000 for the tests we arrange, which is again a tribute to the way in which they are conducted. Moreover, the numbers of complaints are diminishing.

In view of the wide publicity this subject has had during the past 10 days, owing to the efforts largely of the reverend gentleman in Leeds and those who have associated themselves with him, one would expect a large number of disappointed candidates to have written to the Ministry with complaints about the conduct of tests, whether justified or not. Hon. Members will be interested and comforted to know that out of between five million and six million drivers in this country we at the Ministry have received only 30 letters of complaint during the past 10 days. Of those, one-third were anonymous and hon. Members know exactly what to do with them.

These facts speak for themselves. The House will wish me to pay a tribute to the driving examiners whose work in difficult circumstances calls for tact, integrity and devotion to duty which we have learned to expect and receive from our public servants. I should also like to thank the hon. Member for Leeds, West for raising this matter, because it has given me an opportunity to make a number of points which I am sure will be of interest to hon. Members and to members of the public generally, not least to the driving examiners who have felt themselves so unfairly criticised.

We are, of course, prepared to investigate the mail bag of the hon. Member. It will mean the expenditure of a good deal of time and of the taxpayer's money, and if the other witnesses in his mail bag are of the same calibre as the Reverend Fawcett, I am bound to say that their evidence will be of no particular value. I hope that the Press will have the necessary space to give the same publicity to my remarks as has been given to the allegations.

My right hon. Friend and I are always prepared to receive from hon. Members details of cases where it is thought that their constituents have been unfairly treated in the matter of these driving tests. But this whole matter has proved itself to be entirely without foundation. Not a shred of evidence has been produced either by Mr. Fawcett, in his correspondence, or by the hon. Member today—

Mr. Pannell

That is absolute rubbish. The hon. Gentleman's speech was prepared for him before he had heard my evidence.

Mr. Braithwaite

In conclusion, I cannot do better than quote the statement which was made by my right hon. Friend in reply to a Question which was put to him by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus). This was the Question to which the hon. Member for Leeds, West took so much exception, although it was tabled before he had got his allocation for the Adjournment.

Mr. Pannell

At least I wrote my own speech.

Mr. Braithwaite

My right hon. Friend said: I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing my complete confidence in the integrity of the Ministry's staff of driving examiners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1953; Vol. 513 c. 140.]