MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVING ESTABLISHMENTS (Hansard, 16 March 1965)

§ .Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison (Eye)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable the Minister of Transport to license establishments which give instruction in driving motor vehicles and to make regulations with respect to a code of driving instruction and the qualifications of instructors. In view of the ghastly high rate of deaths and maiming on the roads I make no apology for asking the House to devote a few minutes to the subject of road safety. Although, during 1964, much was done to improve road safety, the final figures of deaths were 13 per cent. more than in 1963. The total number was not six or ten times, but more than twelve times the number of hon. Members in the House. It is as though all the Members of the House were killed once a month for all 12 months of the year—a total of 7,820. In addition, eight times as many were seriously injured.

A schoolboy was asked what was the difference between the quick and the dead and he said, "Well, the quick are those who get out of the way in time. The dead are those who don't."

I have concerned myself with the question of road safety and have brought it before the House on a number of occasions. During the last year we have seen the initiation of the Minister's scheme for professional driving instructors to take the Ministry's test. This is having a beneficial effect, but at the moment it is not compulsory, only voluntary. In an honorary capacity I have to declare an interest in this matter, since I have the honour to be President of the Professional Driving Instructors' Federation and, as such, together with its officers, I have had most helpful talks with the Minister and his staff, because we are all activated by the same motives. I am seeking leave to introduce the Bill in order to improve the situation.

We have to face the certain fact today that every boy or girl who reaches the age of 17 is a potential driver of a motor vehicle. It is not the members of one section of our society who are likely to be drivers, or even professional drivers; all are likely to want to drive at some 1076 time in their lives and therefore they want to learn as early as possible, and accordingly look round to see where they can obtain instruction. Many steps have been taken by the House to improve standards. One of them is the learner-driver test. This creates a floor, but no more. A person who passes it has reached a certain driving competence and a certain knowledge of the Highway Code, but the man supervising the test sees his pupil for only a short time.

Although he may have had only a few hours' instruction, the moment that anyone has passed that test he is, under our law at the moment, able to set himself up in business as a driving instructor, or start a school and take pupils—and to take them on the roads. This is an absolute nonsense. There was a case in my own county of a learner-driver who was 82 years old and who had an accident while being supervised by a 78-year-old driver. Because there are not enough schools, members of the public are turning to anyone. The shortage of schools arises from the fact that unqualified people can take others for instruction. The high percentage of failures in the L driver test is due to bad instruction and tuition in the early stages.

I have been into this matter fairly carefully, and I can assure the House that from the word "go", when a boy or girl, man or woman, sits in the driving seat, good instruction is essential. If it is not given, bad habits are formed and are never cured. These lead to accidents. We need a standard system of instruction.

One magistrate has been heard to say that a motor accident, according to witnesses before him, was a head-on collision between two stationary cars parked on their own sides of the road. I am asking that these schools should be licensed now. Only recently the House passed a Bill licensing horse and pony riding establishments. The Bill is in the interests of us all, and seeks to provide safety for us all.

It is conceivable that one of us will leave this House, perhaps some time this week, and be killed or maimed by someone who has never had any proper tuition, or has been badly instructed. I am certain that if we licensed these schools we would have more of them. There are enough competent instructors, 1077 and more would train when they saw that their living would not be undermined by unskilled competition from outside.

Have not we in this House a responsibility for all those who want to learn to drive? Many people will even go to extra classes to learn to drive better, and we have a responsibility to see that the right methods are available to them. If they cannot get into one of the driving schools, or obtain the services of a trained instructor, they are exploited willy-nilly by people who are not really qualified. How is the 17-year-old to tell whether a driving school or an instructor is good or bad unless it has the approval of the Ministry? The Minister has gone so far regarding instructors that I feel that my proposed Bill is the next logical step for him to take.

A car is just as much a lethal weapon as a firearm. If one is maimed or killed, it does not matter by which method. The other day the House gave a Second Reading to a Bill designed to give much greater control over firearms. I ask the House to do the same with an equally lethal weapon—the motor vehicle—and to see that the public have the protection afforded by the right type of driving schools and standards of instruction.

1078 I hope that I may obtain, in due course, a Second Reading for my Bill. I am in no way hidebound about the Clauses in it, except in respect of the main purpose, and I should welcome assistance if the Bill reaches a Committee stage. More and more we know that it is the driver who matters most. He may feel in better health one day than another and may drive better, but at least we want to see that everyone, for his own safety, has been instructed in the proper way.