HC Deb 03 February 1977 vol 925 cc887-911

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1977), dated 23rd November 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th December, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker

With this we are also to discuss the second motion: That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Amendment) Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 2155), dated 15th December 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th December, be annulled.

Mr. Fowler

I wish to make clear that the purpose of the Prayer is to allow a general debate on the MOT test. It is important to every motorist and it would be wrong for this occasion to pass without a discussion. The aim of the Opposition is to improve the effect of the tests. Therefore, we shall not be voting against the regulations tonight. I make that clear not only to help Labour Members but because the purpose of the Prayer procedure is sometimes misunderstood outside the House. The truth is that it provides the only opportunity for a debate on the regulations.

Our aim, therefore, is to have a constructive debate. I hope the Minister will accept that although we have criticisms and suggestions they are made with the aim of improving road safety. There is no division on that objective between the two sides of the House.

The Government have set down the new conditions which cars will have to meet from 1st January this year. I know the Minister will agree that the Government have been greatly helped in the introduction of the new scheme by the representatives of the Motor Agents Association, and I pay tribute to that body. The new requirements cover a number of additional points. They mean, for example, that checks are now carried out on stop lamps, wheels, direction indicators, windscreen washers and wipers, exhaust systems, seat belts, bodywork and suspension.

These are important new requirements, but my first criticism is that very little effort has been made to tell the public what is now required of them. This is a fundamentally important point. If we are to have good road safety standards, the requirements of the law must be known and should be publicised, yet the evidence suggests that thousands of motorists are in the dark and do not know what is required of them. This point is made in the current issue of the magazine of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. It is made even more forcefully by Motor Trader magazine.

But that is not all. It is not only the public who have been left in the dark. In addition, the new manuals for use by testing stations are only now becoming available at the end of the first month of operation of the new regulations. In the first weeks of the scheme the manuals that were intended to act as a detailed guide for the testing stations were simply not available. This position moved one motoring magazine to dub the Department of Transport the "Ministry of Chaos". Whether or not we agree about that, I am sure the House will agree that there has been a serious muddle over the introduction of the new requirements.

Perhaps that is one reason why, on the latest information available, the number of MOT failures seems to be increasing. Clearly it is early days yet, and it would be wrong to place too much emphasis on the figures, but the surveys which have been carried out suggest that the failure rate has increased since the beginning of the year. A survey by the Motor Trader showed that the failure rate on MOT tests was now 45 per cent., which represents a sharp increase on the rate until 1st January this year.

A remarkable survey carried out by a test centre in the South-East showed that 48 per cent. of 440 cars tested failed. Evidence showed that many of the faults were concerned with the new requirements in these regulations—namely, those relating to washers, wipers and indicators. The point that I emphasise is that if the conditions we are debating are important enough to go into the MOT rules, the motoring public should be made aware of them. Frankly, a considerable number of motorists in the country do not know what is now required of them. I hope that if the debate does nothing else it will at least help in that respect.

I now turn to the philosophy of the scheme and its aim. The MOT test is a useful aid to road safety. It prevents unroadworthy cars being on the road. The Minister and I have had our disagreements about seriously damaged cars, but that is not an issue that could appropriately be raised in this debate. The MOT test has done useful work and has prevented accidents, but it is not, and was never intended to be, a guarantee of safety for the following months. The responsibility still lies with the motorist himself.

There is another basic point. The MOT test is not always the most exacting. A car going at 60 miles per hour with good brakes should be able to stop in 150 ft. The minimum standard required by the MOT test is that it should be able to stop in 240 ft. That is the difference between a car with 80 per cent. braking efficiency and one with 50 per cent., efficiency, yet the 50 per cent. requirement is laid down in the MOT test. Even after passing the test, a car may be in a condition that many professionals in motoring would describe as not ideal and probably as unsatisfactory. The MOT certificate does not guarantee safety. It is an important check list, and we should be wise to regard it as simply that.

Many cars fail the MOT test. Many could be put right, but in other cases the motorist may want to appeal. The legal position was described by a Department of the Environment official, Mr. B. J. Bennett, in a letter last March. He said that a driver who drives a vehicle that has failed its test and about which he intends to appeal is in a vulnerable position. He said: he may be leaving himself open to a charge of driving an unroadworthy vehicle or a much more serious charge if he is involved in a road accident. This is a decision for the individual. The insurance position may be compromised by driving a failed vehicle if it is shown that it was seriously defective thus defaulting on the conditions of the insurance policy. However, the legal requirement for insurance is cover for third party risks and this cover remains in force although the insurers may decide to recover any settlement from the defaulting driver. Thus financial risk is borne by the driver and he alone is compromised by his actions. I challenge the last part of the letter which says that the driver alone is compromised by his actions. Surely that is not the case. By definition, that man is driving a car that has been found by a testing station to be unsatisfactory and possibly dangerous. Testers can tell of cars on which brakes were so defective that the pedal would go right down to the floor without having any effect on the car. Regrettably, cases of that sort are fairly common. Clearly such a situation is dangerous to the driver, but it is also dangerous to all other road users and to pedestrians. Other people are compromised by the actions of that motorist.

What is the legal position here and in regard to appeals certificates? The Department specifically warns against motorists seeking to repair alleged defects. It says that vehicles should not be repaired before the appeal has been considered. But what is the Department's advice for the motorist in the meantime? Should be use his car or not? This is an important question on which the motoring Press has been pressing the Department of Transport and its predecessor, the Department of the Environment. This debate would be an appropriate time for the Government to give us guidance.

The easiest thing to do in road safety is to advocate a whole new range of regulations. I have not sought to do that. I believe that it is important that the road safety case for the driver looking after his own car should be got over more forcefully and better than at present. We cannot be satisfied with the sort of results that we are getting. Each year more than 4 million cars—about 35 per cent.—fail the MOT test. That is the 1975 figure, and I imagine that the 1976 figure was about the same, but this is the level before the new regulations come into force.

Many of the failures are due to serious defects. Faulty brakes account for 21 per cent. of failures, 18 per cent. of the failures are caused by faulty steering, and faulty lights and tyres account for 7 per cent. and 6 per cent. of failures respectively. The evidence is that many cars on the road are not in a roadworthy condition, and some are plain dangerous.

Last summer the AA conducted a survey, separate from the MOT test, in my home area, the West Midlands—the heart of the British motoring industry. It showed that 38 per cent. of cars tested had worn or damaged tyres, 36 per cent. had defective lights and 42 per cent. displayed what was called uneven braking tendencies. They were spot checks and probably present a more accurate picture than the MOT test, for which motorists often repair their vehicles.

Our road safety strategy should be first to improve training and driving skills with such schemes as the Institute of Advanced Motorists' test and the RAC's ACU scheme for motor cyclists, and to try to get home the message that it makes sense for a motorist to look after his car and to have it serviced regularly. Some people say that advertising and publicity do little in this direction, but I do not accept that view. I believe that this is something we must try to do more vigorously than we have done in the past.

The regulations which we are discussing are important, and I hope that their importance and their effect will have been emphasised by this debate. I hope, above all, that no one will believe that the MOT test by itself is a guarantee of safety. It is not, and the individual motorist remains responsible for ensuring the roadworthiness of his own vehicle.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has once again confirmed my impression that he is thoroughly enjoying his rôle as Opposition spokesman on transport matters. He spoke tonight in a vein slightly different from that which he adopted on the last occasion, when we discussed cherished number plates. He was not quite so abrasive, not quite so bitter, but was very enjoyable to hear, and he made a series of constructive proposals. As the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I was automatically ticking off in my mind three of the points which I hoped to make, but I shall take up at least one or two others.

I shall be brief, although there seems little contest from my own Benches—would that it was always so—and I shall first take up the question of guidance and information. When I see a substantial document such as these new regulations, especially when it runs to 36 pages or so, I always look for conclusions and recommendations. I am sure that it would be useful for the local garage to have conclusions and recommendations accompanying the regulations. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield spoke of information to the public. Information to the trade is important too.

I take it that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that some sort of advice or "garage guide" on the new regulations will be made available to those who will have to conduct the tests. My hon. Friend will have to do it within a limited budget. It is all very well to ask that the public should be told more, but at a time of intense restraint on Government spending not all that we hope for may be done. There should, however, be a garage guide and a public guide, so that the public would know what they were entitled to and what was expected of them, and the garage could refer to it.

Next, I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield that the test certificate is a certificate of roadworthiness as at that date—not the day afterwards, the week afterwards, the month afterwards or the year afterwards. Somewhere in Hansard there is a report of a debate about 10 years ago in which I proudly proclaimed that I was the owner of three motor cars. I bought the last one for £14. It had a current MOT certificate. I took it to the Liverpool depot, and it turned out to be literally a death trap, although at the auction it was said to have a current certificate of roadworthiness.

The point which I made then I make again now: a current MOT certificate is not a certificate of roadworthiness. Everyone knows that, but it seems that a good many people still buy cars in one way or another with three months, six months or more to go on the MOT certificate, assuming that they are roadworthy vehicles.

I suggest that at some time the Government—a Government of either party, although I do not expect one from the Conservatives just yet, or even for a long time—will have to say that ownership of a vehicle may change only if it has an MOT certificate of limited validity—say, one month instead of 12 months or whatever it may be. That in itself would not avoid the possibility of someone having an MOT test certificate on Monday and then having something seriously wrong with his car on Tuesday or Wednesday, but it would at least limit the effective period.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

That is a very good point. As the hon. Gentleman says, many motorists buy a car and, because the test certificate still has 11 months to run, they assume that they can run it safely for 11 months. Would not the easiest way to overcome that be for the insurance companies to use their influence to have the MOT certificate stamped "This is valid only on the day of issue, and motorists are advised accordingly"? Second, as to the conditions which should be fulfilled, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is there any reason why those conditions should not be given to the motorist with his log book?

Mr. Ogden

Those are two excellent suggestions, and I hope that the Minister will consider them. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the insurance companies. If the insurers were to use their power and influence, in their own protection as well as that of their clients, I think that a lot of the problems facing the Department could be alleviated. Pressure from the insurance companies themselves can be very beneficial. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider seriously the hon. Gentleman's two excellent suggestions. They would not obviate the problem, but they would help to reduce it.

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield asked that we should have a discussion about MOT test repairs. That is a wider issue, but it comes directly from the regulations.

More and more frequently, when I take my old bangers for their MOT tests I find that parts are not repaired but are replaced. With the limited range of tests undertaken, replacements are not too difficult. Car manufacturers are really car assemblers, and car repairers are really car parts replacers. It is almost impossible to find someone to repair a dynamo, for instance. One has to buy a new one, unless one is prepared to go hunting round scrap yards. It is almost impossible to find a distributor head. Perhaps a Minister who is involved in the Scotland and Wales Bill—who will probably have little to do during the later stages of that Bill—might consider asking the Motor Agents Association and the Traders to have talks with his Department to see whether there is a way, in the design, repairing or servicing of motor cars, to ensure that it is not necessary to acquire an expensive part in order to repair a small item. That would restore to repairers their status and would be of great value.

The Prayer has served a useful purpose. We shall have done a good job if information can be given to the public.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I shall refer to only one or two matters involved in Statutory Instrument No. 1977 which do not appear to be clear. Regulation 9(2) refers to the course of instruction which must be taken by an authorised examiner. It states: After the coming into operation of these Regulations a person shall not be authorised for the first time, in pursuance of arrangements made in accordance with paragraph (1)(b) of this Regulation, to carry out or personally supervise examinations and to sign test certificates unless he has undergone a course of instruction, approved by the Secretary of State, in the carrying out of examinations. On the face of it, the Secretary of State could alter those requirements at any time. May we have an assurance that the rules of the game will not be altered in the middle of the game and that an authorised examiner will not be told that, although he has taken a course that was prescribed at the time, the rules have changed and he is no longer qualified?

I have no proposal on how one can provide against that possibility other than to suggest that the Minister gives an assurance that the rules will not be changed so as to disqualify a man who has previously been qualified. An examiner should go through a course of instruction, and I agree with the intention of the provision, but it is drawn in a manner which could lead to unfairness to those who are qualified.

I regard Regulation 10(2) as unintelligible. Perhaps there is meaning behind it, but it contains so many cross-references that I cannot understand it. I think that it means that someone who tests a vehicle to see that it comes within the terms of the regulations and who passes it, is not a criminal if it does not come within the regulations. I should like an explanation of that provision.

The last regulation, No. 32, states: Provided that this Regulation does not apply to any of the following islands, namely, the Isle of Wight, the islands of Arran, Bute, Great Cumbrae, Islay, Lewis, Mainland (Orkney), Mainland (Shetland), Mull, North Uist and Skye. Some places are missing from the list. The Minister will perhaps confirm that the islands mentioned are those where there are test stations. Or are they the islands where ther are no test stations, so that if one has a car on those islands and one cannot take it to and fro, it can run on those islands without being tested? I am not clear whether these are the islands where it is not necessary to have a car tested or whether they are the islands where it is necessary to have a car tested. The Isles of Scilly are not mentioned.

I turn finally, to the Explanatory Note. Paragraph 11 states: Electrically-propelled goods vehicles are included in the list of vehicles exempted from the test. We are referred to Regulation 30(9). There is no Regulation 30(9). I think it means—again, I ask the Minister to confirm this—Regulation 30(p), because that seems to be the only one that fits the Explanatory Note.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. David Penhaligon (Truro)

I must declare a slight interest in that I have been brought up all my life with garages around me. My father ran a garage all his working life. My brother now runs a garage. I therefore have had some first-hand connection with the MOT test and with the motor trade.

My first point concerns the failure of the extension of the test. My second point is probably a root complaint about the way the test works.

I do not believe that garages should be able to test cars that are their own property. I make that point absolutely seriously. Comment has been made about a car which had a certificate valid for 11 months but which was in a not very roadworthy condition. Cars do not suddenly rust out in 28 days. The steering of a car does not suddenly fail in 28 days, unless the owner is very unlucky. Tyres do not suddenly wear out in 28 days, unless the driver has been driving like a maniac.

In my constituency and in surrounding constituencies where I have sonic knowledge of what has happened—I have no wish to mention individual cases—there has over the years been a substantial number of garages that have quite rightly—I was involved in one of these cases—had their right to conduct the MOT test withdrawn. I believe that the right to test was withdrawn from those garages because they had stretched a point a little.

The House would be naive if it were to believe that every aspect of the MOT test can be divided into clear white "pass" and clear black "fail". I have known my brother ask the other skilled mechanic at his garage—there are only two of them—to look at some part of a car and to give his opinion, to say whether it would be right to pass the car. In such cases the mechanics have not known; the car has been on the borderline. There must by definition be a borderline somewhere.

I suspect that the reason why some cars for which a certificate valid for 11 months was in existence have been found to be in a ropy condition was that the owner of the car was a garage owner. The 1100 is the most notorious of all cars. The 1100 can look very respectable on the outside and yet be a bag of rust underneath.

With a valid MOT certificate, secondhand or eighth-hand, an 1100 is worth between £250 and £300. Without an MOT certificate, it is worth £20 down at the scrap yard. What would do more than anything else to remove the problems now experienced with the test would be the introduction of a system whereby a garage, if it was the owner of a car, could not test the car and issue itself with an MOT certificate for the car. If the garage owner had a mate down the road who was foolish enough to co-operate with him, his mate would want his head examined; and, as his mate would be making no money out of the transaction, I cannot believe that he would be as willing to extend his co-operation.

I am disappointed that other matters have been omitted from the test. I am concerned about the thermo-dynamic efficiency of motor cars. We live in a cruel world in respect of the cost of fuel. Maybe the Government thought that the problems were too great, but I should have liked to see some form of efficiency audit for the cars that are given an MOT test. An exhaust gas analysis is not so very difficult. All that is necessary is to check the carbon monoxide content. Provided that it is within a certain range, there is the clearest indication that the car is approaching relative efficiency.

Those who carry out the MOT test learn that, no matter how much legislation is in force, there are always some who will be on the fiddle. I have seen a car come in for an MOT test with blue wheels, and it has been failed for bad tyres. The owner has taken it away and half an hour later it is brought back, and by magic it has green wheels bearing four new tyres. This has happened to my brother. What is he supposed to do in that event? Clearly the owner had gone to a friend and swapped wheels for 20 minutes. The owner may have painted the wheels and put on new tyres, but that would be an achievement in 20 minutes. I suspect that the wheels had been borrowed from a friend for a short time.

When that happened to my brother, he scratched his head and took the view that at the moment the car was satisfactory and that it was not his concern what was done to it when it left the garage. I hope that my brother will not lose his licence as a result of this disclosure.

The MOT test has done a great deal to improve safety, and it ill becomes the public generally to criticise the garages that administer it. Equally, it is not right to criticise Ministers for not doing this, that and the other when the House is not ready to deal with seat belt legislation, which would make an enormous contribution to saving lives on the roads. Equally, it is not ready to make a real reform of the drink and driving laws, which is surely required and could make an enormous contribution to the saving of lives.

The MOT test is largely accepted. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) talked so much about appeals. I took up the matter over the weekend. In the small circle within which I discussed the matter, it seemed that an appeal is a rare event. If a car fails the test, it is often taken across town to another garage which has a reputation for being easier. If the car fails at that garage, it is usually accepted that it is a car that will not pass the test, although that is not always accepted.

Indeed, the test has not always been accepted. My father collected two black eyes while explaining to constituents that their cars were write-offs whereas they thought that they had something that would virtually last a lifetime.

Some of my points are jocular, but I ask the Minister to concentrate his mind on whether garages should be allowed to test their own cars. If he checks the statistics, he will find that the vast bulk of disqualifications have involved cars in the ownership of testing garages. I think that the Minister could do more to improve the test. After all, we all want to improve the test so as to make the roads safer for our constituents and their neighbours. More could be done in that direction than anything else by banning, the practice of garages testing cars that they own.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove and Redditch)

The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) for his technical expertise. I am at a disadvantage in that he has taken some of the points I wished to make.

I must first express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) for giving us the opportunity, although by a curious means, to support this measure. It must strike members of the public as odd, as it struck me as being exceedingly odd, that if one wishes to support something it is necessary to table a motion against the proposition one wishes to support. In common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), I was trying to find a defect in the regulations on which to hang the Prayer. Indeed, my right hon. Friend alighted upon the absence of Regulation 30(9). I join him in supposing that the reference is to Regulation 30(p).

I should like to probe the Minister's thinking on the authorisation of examiners, and in particular the designation of councils. We have had a bit of trouble over the proposed West Midlands County Council Bill, which included, amongst other encroachments of the individual's sphere of operations, the proposal that the council should set up garage services, including testing stations. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has been in correspondence with the Minister about this. He has certainly had trouble over the matter in his constituency.

What is the Minister's policy on designation of councils for this purpose? More particularly, what is his view about the authorisation of examiners? We have heard that there were proposals to reduce the number of testing stations, regardless of the convenience of the public and regardless of the accessibility of the stations. I hope that when he seeks our support for the regulations the Minister will be able to reveal something of what is in his mind.

On that point I must refer the Minister to some of the language in Regulation 9(2) about the course of instruction: in pursuance of arrangements made in accordance with paragraph (1)(b)", which did not quite seem to tie in, as I read it. The hon. Gentleman may be able to assure me that it is correctly stated.

While on the subject of gobbledegook I refer to Regulation 11(3), which says that a request for an examination may be made by telephone, in person or in writing. That seems to dot too many i's and cross too many t's. The imagination boggles when one wonders how a request could be made in any other way. One must congratulate the draftsman on being so comprehensive.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

It could be by extrasensory perception.

Mr. Miller

There are still serious difficulties, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). One concerns the supply of adequate manuals to garages. We read in the February issue of the magazine of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents that at the date of that magazine's publication the manuals had not been received by the garages because there has been difficulties at the printers. Some legal issues may arise over this interim period where no manuals have been issued. I hope that the Minister can assure us that any special difficulties arising in that period have been dealt with in the light of the manuals' absence.

The magazine also makes the serious point that many cars are still failing the test. A valid ground for praying against the regulations would be that there is no good reason why there should be no test until three years after a car is registered. I think that a car should be tested as it leaves the manufacturer, because we hear of many people receiving cars that are faulty on delivery.

Mr. Ogden

It is not only a question of testing when the car leaves the manufacturer. The distributor also has a responsibility. The majority of faults are found by the distributor or retailer as the cars go out.

Mr. Miller

I accept the proposition that a certificate should be issued when the vehicle leaves the distributor rather than when it leaves the manufacturer, but certainly it must be done before the vehicle is on the road in the hands of the new owner. I gladly support my hon. Friend on that.

I believe that there should be an initial test and that thereafter we should consider moving to an annual test. There is no sufficient reason for a gap of three years, particularly as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield has done so much to elucidate the situation about written-off cars which are then put back on to the road. An initial test might be one way of getting at cars which are found on inspection to be undrivable or drivable without any degree of safety—in other words, the problem vehicles. I personally experienced a situation in which I was surprised to see my own car, which had been written off in an accident, preceding me on the road two months later, with a proud new owner at the wheel totally unaware of what had happened earlier to the vehicle.

There has been opposition to the regulations from the motoring organisations, but I am glad to say that the motor manufacturers have expressed their support for the regulations. Members of the public find it difficult to understand the failure of components within the three-year period, which is another argument for more frequent testing when that becomes more feasible.

Mr. Penhaligon

Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the MOT test takes place after a car is three years old and thereafter annually?

Mr. Miller

Yes, I appreciate that, but I am referring to tests beginning when a car is first issued and continuing annually until the existing annual inspection arrangement starts. I appreciate that there may be difficulty in coping with numbers.

I do not know whether the Minister has considered the matter, but it is a common experience that exhaust pipes fall off vehicles after only 12 or 18 months on the road, depending on road conditions. When one takes up these matters with component manufacturers, they say "We could easily make exhaust pipes that would last longer, but the manufacturers will not pay us to do so". When one approaches the manufacturers, they say "Mrs. So-and-So, who lives in the country and drives only 3,000 miles a year, does not need an exhaust pipe that lasts that long", whereas, of course, we all know that the commercial traveller who travels 40,000 miles a year expects to get through an exhaust pipe after only nine months. I believe that there is need for more frequent inspection and that we need to awaken the public conscience to demand a higher standard of components on some vehicles.

The nuisance caused by noise and emissions from faulty exhausts is considerable, and it is not only heavy lorries that offend in this respect.

I support the introduction of the regulations, but I beg the Minister to give us guidance about the future of testing stations, instructions to examiners and the possibility of extending the inspection of vehicles to include an initial inspection and annual inspection thereafter.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

I wish to follow up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller), but before I do so I should like to mention the remarks of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). I hope that the practical knowledge that lay behind the hon. Gentleman's speech will not lead to his brother losing his licence as a vehicle tester.

What concerns me a little about the regulations is that authorisations are issued under Regulation 8 but that under Regulation 26 the Minister has power to withdraw such authorisations and there is no right of appeal to any independent body. Is the Minister satisfied that justice is done to a garage which might have lost its authorisation for technical reasons and which might have legtimate grounds for objection? Have there been objections to this procedure? Does the Minister feel it is right that there should be no independent right of appeal on a matter which could seriously affect the business of a reputable garage?

The MOT test is an important feature of the life of a motorist, whether he owns one car or whether he owns a fleet, like the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). The test is a matter of great importance. It is vital to ensure that it is widely respected and that the motorist believes that it is doing a good job before we extend it—certainly before we extend it to annual testing from the time when a car is new as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch suggested. I believe that the test is a good thing. It must have done much to get some old bangers off the road. It is a source of irritation to many motorists and an additional expense at a time when the motorist is heavily burdened by massively increasing costs.

The test is also the cause of scepticism because people know that it is possible to get an MOT test certificate from less reputable garages in respect of a car that may be below standard. When the public are aware of that, their scepticism and dislike of regulations are increased. It is incumbent upon the Department of Transport constantly to prove the case for the test. For that reason I agree with a great deal of what the AA had to say in the circular which it has sent to hon. Members, although I disagree with its conclusion that we should object to this extension of testing. I agree with much of what it says. For example, it says that there is sufficient evidence seriously to doubt the value of the annual testing scheme and its effect on safety. The AA is an organisation which we should take seriously. It is never afraid to go out on a limb, even with its own members, when it feels that a serious issue of road safety is involved. A good example was its support for legislation aimed at making the wearing of seat belts compulsory. That is not something that would automatically commend itself to all members of the AA. Because the AA believed that such a step was in the interests of road safety, it campaigned for it. When an organisation like this casts serious doubts on the effectiveness of the MOT test, we should listen with care.

In the circular, the AA makes the point that the interests of road safety are not served by the creation of a false sense of security. The test often does just that. A person gets a certificate, and even though he may know two or three months later that the vehicle is unsafe he feels that he can drive it for another nine months or so until the certificate expires.

Mr. Jim Craigen (Glasgow, Maryhill)

I agree that the views of the AA, of which I am a member, should be treated with seriousness. When I read the circular, it gave me the impression that the AA wanted the whole of the MOT test to be scrapped. I accept that one point it was making was that it gave a false sense of security to a motorist who has a certificate.

Mr. Moate

To be fair, the AA concludes with a clear statement of its position, saying: In the view of the Association, the current proposals should be rejected— in other words, the test should be left as it is— and a thorough investigation should be set up to establish the true value of the annual testing scheme. The real danger is that once these things become institutionalised it is almost impossible to dislodge them. Even if it were proved that the test was ineffective, it would be hard to eliminate it.

Mr. Ogden

The hon. Gentleman's argument about institutionalisation surely applies equally to the AA. I am a member of the AA. I had a choice of two organisations to join; one had a blue badge and the other a yellow one. I chose the yellow badge because it is my party's colour. The hon. Gentleman says that the AA will oppose its own mem- bers if it thinks it right to do so. It is extremely difficult to persuade the AA by resolution at an annual general meeting to consider anything in opposition to AA policy. Institutionalisation applies there. The official view of the AA is that we should go no further than these regulations.

Mr. Moate

The hon. Gentleman is describing the problem of all establishments, and I largely concur with what he has said. It is incumbent on the Department constantly to re-prove the case for the test. Certainly, before we make further extension and increases in fee it must be clearly established that the test is doing a good job, that the regulations are being applied toughly and that a lot of people are not getting away with unscrupulous practices which undermine the operation.

Many dangerous vehicles have been driven off the road, and that is sufficient evidence to me that the tests have done a first-class job. One knows personally of people who have got rid of a dangerous vehicle because of a forthcoming test. Such personal experience is enough for me to want to continue the test. The high failure rate attributed to many of the new conditions is to me further evidence of the strength of the case for extending the test to cover this point.

I welcome the application of the test to seat belts. We considered the accident statistics on the seat belts Bill last Session, and we know that the failure of seat belts to operate effectively is a major cause of casualties. Therefore, it must be right that they should be tested. It is extraordinary, however, that we should now have regulations insisting that seat belts should be installed, properly maintained and inspected and yet the Government, who thought the matter important enough to introduce a Bill—which, sadly, failed—in the last Session, have not done so this Session. The fact that 1,000 lives could be saved each year by the compulsory wearing of seat belts makes these regulations seem puny and pitiful.

I urge the Government to bring back the seat belts Bill, and to do so mighty fast. As the Minister's predecessor said last Session, it was the most important Bill that the Government could introduce to reduce the casualty rate on the roads. I believe it right that the House should have taken the opportunity to debate regulations of immense importance to motorists.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury)

There is not much more one can say about the regulations, except to remind the Minister, as I remind my colleagues, that it is not a lack of statute law which sometimes means that we do not have the best legal system: it is the ability to enforce that law. Although I welcome these regulations, as I welcomed the original concept of a test, the effectiveness of the regulations or of the manual to be sent to authorised examiners will depend on the quality of those who carry out the test.

We know that an MOT test certificate is a commercial document. Whereas it may satisfy the owner of a vehicle that his vehicle is safe, it will also help anyone to sell a second-hand vehicle. Because we know that to be the case, we have to appreciate that there is wide disparity in the quality of examinations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said, MOT test certificates have been issued in respect of vehicles which were grossly unroadworthy and extremely dangerous.

I concentrate my remarks, therefore, on the question of who shall test the examiners. I ask the Minister to say a little more about the course of instruction referred to in Regulation 9 on page 7. Exactly what sort of course of instruction has the Department in mind? How long is it to last, and where is it to be carried out? I should be very uneasy if I found that the course of instruction ended up by being some form of "in house" testing. I should like to think that the various Ministry vehicle testing establishments might serve as schools for the instruction so that we might all know that those who carried out the tests and thus issued the test certificates or failed vehicles really could claim the sort of knowledge which we all suppose them to have when we take in our vehicles to be examined.

I am not very happy about the existing penalties for authorised examiners who prove to be guilty of giving certificates for vehicles which should not have passed the test. I am sure that the Minister is as concerned as any of us when he reads of a person who has hawked his vehicle from one garage to another until finally he has got an MOT test certificate. No matter how good the regulations are, that practice will not end until the quality of examiners throughout the country, as near as that is possible—I recognise that there will always be loopholes—has been raised to the highest possible level.

That leads me on to the question of the Ministry inspection of authorised examiners, as outlined in Regulation 24, on page 16. I wonder whether the Department intends to increase the number of Ministry inspectors to ensure that this is a really serious sanction against examiners who would treat their job without the responsibility that it requires, and, if so, whether the Minister can say how many more inspectors he intends to put in the field to ensure that this comes about. Will he also say how many premises are inspected in one year by his examiners? Equally, in turn, will there be some form of inspection of the examiners themselves as well as of their premises? I can find no reference to that in Regulation 24.

I come finally to the appeal which a vehicle owner has against a failure in an MOT test. I have a constituent who has felt aggrieved about such a case for three years. He sends me a great many letters on the subject, and on one occasion I raised the matter on the Adjournment. His view is that, although he was granted an appeal against the failure of his vehicle in the test, those who carried out the appeal were not qualified to do the work that they were designated to do. I am not in a position to say whether he is strictly correct, but it does not seem adequate that the appeal, such as it is now, should consist of the same vehicle being taken, perhaps to another garage, to be tested without any special care being taken to prove that those who carry out the appeal test are more qualified than the original examiners.

If the enforcing of the regulations will make them effective, by the same token the belief of the public in their fairness will also be an important consideration in making the whole system work better than it does now.

I would be churlish if I did not congratulate the Government on looking at MOT testing in the way they have done. Figures produced by ROSPA show that there has been a greater failure rate since the new regulations were introduced. That indicates that they are effective. I hope that the Government will take my remarks as comments rather than criticisms.

11.16 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

I shall be very brief. The Minister has kindly indicated that I may raise a couple of points. I wish to reinforce the point which has been made that the MOT certificate should be endorsed showing that it is valid only on the day it is issued. In that way motorists buying cars would realise that it was absolutely essential that some very brief form of qualification necessary for the MOT should be given to the motorist with the log book or test certificate.

It is also important that there should be a proper method of appeal for testing stations. I had one really bad case, and I do not think that this could be dealt with satisfactorily under the new regulations. It is a very serious thing if the right to test is taken away.

I am not at all happy with the three-year exemption period for new cars. Things can go wrong with cars on production lines. When a car is sold by a bona fide distributor there should be a way of making sure that that car is really roadworthy, even though no fault has been detected on the production line.

11.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam)

I shall try to reply to some of the points that have been raised tonight. I apologise to hon. Members that I cannot cover all the issues raised, but I will try to write to those whose points I do not get around to answering.

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) said that relatively little effort had been put into publicising the new regulations and that the public seemed unaware of the new situation. I deny that little effort has been put into it. We have tried to publicise the new regulations as well as we could. However, I accept that it takes the public time to get used to the new situation. We have, nevertheless, tried to ram the situation home.

The point was raised about the tester's manual. I apologise for the fact that due to a printing hold-up there was a delay in producing it. But long before the new regulations came into force garages had a provisional manual which was virtually identical to the final manual, except that it did not have such glossy pictures. I do not think that there has been any problem there in practice.

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield also raised the question of not repairing cars while an appeal is pending. It is impossible to assess the merits of the appeal if the condition of the car has been altered in the interim period. The best advice one can give is that a motorist should not drive his car away until it has been found to be roadworthy. The hon. Member also mentioned the point about driving away unroadworthy vehicles, and I agree that the owner of the car is compromised, as are the wider public.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) made a number of points. I should like to think about them and also about the similar issues raised by the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn). I will note them but will not comment any further this evening.

The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) raised four detailed points with his usual care. I would say that we have won on three and lost on one, and that this is not a bad score. It is certainly not intended to withdraw the nomination of testers retrospectively, and I give the assurance that people who pass the new test will remain qualified as testers in that sense.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not understand Regulation 10(2). I do not always understand these regulations terribly well either. This regulation, however, means that the standards in the test apply to vehicles at all times under the Construction and Use Regulations, and, therefore, while being tested —and only while being tested—they must be exempt so that the tester does not make himself liable for prosecution.

The islands named are those where exemption does not apply. The other islands, which have no convenient or regular vehicle access to the mainland, are exempted from testing. I must confess a small defeat. The figure "30(9)" should read "30(p)".

The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) raised a very interesting question about the testing of cars on property owned by the garage. The situation is that it is not feasible to prohibit this in the way that he suggests. It is always easy to evade that sort of situation. We have looked at it, but over the years we have not found a satisfactory answer to the problem of enforcement, which, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said, is an important aspect.

The hon. Member referred to the analysis of exhaust gases. We have considered this too. A test in idle conditions would not be representative of normal road conditions, and we do not think that that would be a suitable addition to the test.

Mr. Hal Miller

Surely some motor manufacturers have already installed a test of exhaust gases on rolling roads.

Mr. Horam

I am not familiar with that. Perhaps I should look into it. On our present evidence, however, we do not think that this is something that could be done by the ordinary run-of-the-mill garage.

The hon. Member for Truro raised the question of taking wheels on and off, and so forth. The tester is responsible for testing what is put before him, and if there is cheating in what is put before him it cannot be his responsibility. That is something on which it is very hard to check completely.

Mr. Penhaligon

I accept as valid comment what the Minister said about my minor points. Why is it so difficult, however, to pass a regulation providing that a garage cannot test its own cars? That seems relatively simple. It simply needs a law saying that a garage does not have the right to issue an MOT certificate for its own vehicle. When a certificate is issued, it must bear the name of the vehicle owner. The garage could put a fictitious name on the certificate, but that would be fraud and for that the garage could be prosecuted. Therefore, what is the difficulty?

Mr. Horam

My advice is that it is extremely difficult to enforce such a rule. We have looked at the matter and found this to be a problem. I will look at it again. Perhaps I may write to the hon. Member on the subject, if that would help.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) asked about our policy on the designating of stations. There are about 17,000 stations. Certainly a council which met all the requirements would be designated. We would encourage that. There is no change in policy as regards the number of stations we would want. It is important for there to be as many stations as possible for the convenience of the public.

A question was asked about the rights of appeal of garages against withdrawal by the Secretary of State of authorisation to carry out tests. These rights have remained the same since the introduction of the testing scheme in 1961.

Occasionally the question of the apparent lack of impartiality by an authority is raised. The existing arrangements have been the subject of two cases investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, who on both occasions said that there were no grounds for criticism of the appeal procedure. In practice, the examiner has ample opportunity to state his case both before and after the final notice of withdrawal. All appeals are to the Secretary of State, who delegates consideration to the head of the vehicle inspection division at the Department's headquarters. We are not aware of any general feeling of dissatisfaction over the years about the procedure.

I endorse the points made by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) about seat belts. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the wider question of the AA's views which, I understand, have been circulated to hon. Members.

There is a continual need to justify a test of this kind. The test was introduced in 1961 as a result of considerable public concern over the general conditions of cars on the roads. The most valuable and immediate effect of the test was to remove many old bangers from the roads. It also made the public aware of safety and the benefit of car maintenance.

We still find that over 30 per cent. of cars fail the test, even though there is a pre-notified check of specified items. The fact that the failure rate is so high in the restricted conditions of the test, is justification for continuing to test cars in this way.

Mr. Craigen

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Horam

No. I have only two minutes left. I must finish by 11.29. I do not know what the Scottish aspects are.

The MOT test is only one of a number of general road safety measures that were introduced in 1961. Therefore, it has some relevance to the fact that the road accident rate for private cars dropped by 45 per cent. between 1961 and 1975. We and, indeed, the AA should reflect on that fact.

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was right to say that the test was no guarantee of safety. The individual ultimately is responsible for the condition of his car. However, although we cannot say by how much, we believe that this measure has helped to prevent many accidents over the years. In the same way, I think that seat belts would prevent many accidents if they were made compulsory.

Mr. Norman Fowler

Even more.

Mr. Horam

Perhaps even more. The MOT test has been a major contributory factor to an excellent record of road safety.

The hon. Member for Newbury asked me several questions. I am afraid that he put them so rapidly, just before I was about to speak, that I did not take them all down. I shall write to him on the detailed points that he made.

The testing course for garage hands lasts for one day at the Government testing station. The instructors are the Department's examiners. They deal with all the basic questions of the method of testing—the practical aspects, the paper work and so on. We have talked about the additional items which are being tested from 1st January. I think that they will form on important addition to the effectiveness of the test. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. Norman Fowler

As I said at the beginning, we do not want to press this matter to a Division. We have had a constructive debate. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.