New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 6 OF Acr OF 1934.) (Hansard, 31 May 1956)

§ Mr. Skeffington
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I Should perhaps again explain to the House that the new Clause which I am moving has the general support of the London County Council and, I understand, of a number of other licensing authorities. I make it quite clear in the terms of the Clause that the issue of provisional licences is not touched. As regards the issue of driving licences, Section 6 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, states that a driving licence may not be issued unless the applicant satisfies the authority on one of two grounds, either that he has passed the test of competence to drive a motor vehicle, or that he held a licence prior to the 1st April, 1934.
This condition was, no doubt, inserted in the 1934 Act when tests were first introduced, because it would have been quite impossible, administratively, and practically to have arranged for all drivers of vehicles to be tested within a reasonable period. I imagine it was for that reason that the condition was put in the Act of 1934. Nevertheless that condition 486 is still a binding condition on the authorities which issue driving licences. Although in 20 years one would suppose that some review might have been made of this matter, nothing has occurred. The passage of this Bill seems to provide an opportunity for rectifying a condition which is now very much out-of-date.
6.0 p.m.
If a person does make application for a driving licence and says that he held a driving licence before Ist April, 1934, that means that he has not in fact driven a motor vehicle for more than 20 years. Road conditions since he drove have changed very much indeed. There has been the change in the speed and design of motor vehicles and the change in road conditions generally. Traffic conditions have become more chaotic; speeds have become much greater outside towns and driving conditions very much worse in towns. That would lead one to suppose that the ability to drive a vehicle 22 years ago is no criterion at all for the granting of a licence without a test today.
Therefore the new Clause proposes that instead of the words in the present Section 6 (1) of the 1934 Act, relating to having driven a motor vehicle before 1st April, I934, there should be inserted the words" during the period of ten years immediately preceding the date on which the licence applied for, That gives some latitude to those who have been experienced motorists. One could perhaps argue that even a ten-year interval between having driven a vehicle and today involves taking some risk, as to a driver's ability but at any rate it is a more reasonable risk than suggesting that a proper qualification for granting a licence is that a person drove a motor vehicle 22 years ago. That is the state of the law today.
Another aspect of this matter is that some people claim to have had a motor vehicle licence before 1934, but probably did not have one. It is extraordinarily difficult for many authorities to prove whether a licence was issued before 1934. Since the condition was first introduced records have not always been retained for convenient periods. Many local authority records were lost or destroyed during the war, and so there is a loophole for the person who may feel that he will not pass the test, by which he can get away with it by claiming that he had a licence 487 before 1st April, 1934. I do not suggest that this is a very serious matter, but I think it is one which ought not to be overlooked when we are considering general questions of road safety and the consequence of those who drive motor vehicles.
As I have pointed out earlier, the London County Council supports this Clause. The experience of that authority is worth quoting, because it issues more driving licences than any other authority in the country—more than 660,000 last year. That authority finds that it gets some 250 applications a year from people claiming that, although they have not driven for 22 years, they did hold a licence before that date. As the law stands, neither that authority nor any other has any alternative but to issue a licence, but I know they issue some with considerable doubt. Certainly the very considerable changes in conditions since before 1943 should make it incumbent upon us to alter this condition and the passage of this Bill provides the opportunity.
I hope the Minister will feel that the time is opportune for a review of the matter and will feel disposed to accept the new Clause, or to give some undertaking to propose legislation on these lines.

§ Mr. J. A. Sparks (Acton)
I beg to second the Motion.

§ Mr. Molson
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has raised what undoubtedly is an important matter. The Ministry of Transport on a number of occasions in the past has wondered whether it was justifiable to continue indefinitely the provision of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, under which any person who held a driving licence before 1st April of that year could thereafter, for the rest of his natural life, take out a driving licence without being subject to a driving test.
By this Clause the hon. Member has raised the very strong case of someone who has in fact not taken out a driving licence for a period of ten years and who then elects to do so claiming that as he or she held a driving licence at some time before 1st April. 1934, he or she is entitled to obtain a driving licence without being subject to any test. The argument in principle in favour of the Clause 488 is a very strong one. It cannot be hi the interests of road safety to allow licences to be freely issued to persons who have not driven in this country for ten or more years and have never passed a driving test. It also adds very considerably to the bother local authorities are put to. I am not at all surprised to learn that London County Council supports the Clause.
The practice involves the keeping of records by local authorities and those records have to be searched in order to establish whether in fact at some time or other an applicant received a licence from an authority. It also opens the possibility of fraud because a person may make a statutory declaration that he held a licence and records may not be available. As the hon. Member pointed out, a number of records of local authorities were destroyed during the war. I therefore feel that the hon. Member has made a strong case for the Clause.
I am not quite sure that I would not prefer, since we are dealing with this matter, to go a little further. If the intention of the Clause is to ensure that anyone who allows ten years to elapse between the expiry of one driving licence and application for the next should be subjected to a driving test, it is evident that the Clause does not in fact effect that. Where people have allowed that period to elapse without obtaining a driving licence I do not think it unreasonable that, before obtaining another driving licence, they should accept the obligation of passing the driving test, like a new applicant. Indeed, with the ever-increasing congestion on our roads and the increasing speeds, and so on, the difficulty of driving a motor vehicle safely is constantly increasing.
Therefore, I am prepared to accept the spirit of the new Clause, but I think it would be desirable to go a little further. In the Amendment which we shall propose in another place, we should like to provide that in every case where a motorist has neglected to obtain a driving licence for ten years it should be a condition of the grant of a new licence after that interval of time that he or she should undergo the normal driving test. We have looked at this matter from the administrative point of view, and we are satisfied that there are not many cases of this kind and that such an Amendment would not throw any excessive burden upon the examiners.
489 It is, perhaps, unusual for the Government not only to accept an Amendment or a new Clause but to propose to go further, but I hope and believe that in the general interests of road safety this slight extension I have described will commend itself to the House.

§ Mr. Skeffington
I am not certain whether the right hon. Gentleman is inviting me to withdraw the Clause, but if he is, in view of the undertaking he has given, I shall be very happy to do so. I thought that this was the most reasonable form in which to put the new Clause, but I shall be only too happy if the matter can be dealt with in the way the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, and I think the licensing authorities will be happy too. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.