HC Deb 14 April 1981 vol 3 cc245-59
Mr. Booth

I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 17, line 30, at end insert— 'In section 88(4) of the 1972 Act the following words are inserted:— (c) a motorcycle for a period longer than the period prescribed for the holding of a provisional licence for a motorcycle under the regulations made under section 81(1)(d).".'. Under the clause the Secretary of State is taking power to refuse to renew a provisional licence to a motor cyclist who has not taken and passed the new two-part motor cycle test introduced by the Bill.

In Committee the Under-Secretary made it clear that it was the Secretary of State's intention, if this part of the Bill is passed unamended, to use this power to ban any motor cyclist who has not passed his test within two years of first taking out his provisional licence. The right hon. Gentleman intends to ban him from driving for at least a year.

This is a new form of penalty—a riding ban, a ban on having a licence, not for having committed any crime but for having failed a test, or to have taken a test. It is unjust and inequitable, because it is proposed to apply this form of penalty to one type of vehicle user only. I shall explain later that, strictly, it does not apply only to those vehicles.

If tonight we were dealing with a part of the Bill that proposed that everyone who sought to ride on a provisional licence for any type of vehicle should, if he failed to pass the test within two years, be banned from driving for a period, at least it would be equitable as between all types of vehicle user. The freedom to choose which type of vehicle he or she should learn to drive is one with which the House should not interfere. I hope that the great proponents of individual freedom who grace the House of Commons Benches will support the amendment.

What makes the proposal even more unjust is that there is a type of person who, under the Bill, will be allowed to drive the same type of motor cycle as a person who has a motor cycle provisional licence, and who will be able to go on riding the motor cycle without ever being required by the law to take the test. I refer to a person who has a car driving licence. People who have a car driving licence will be able to hold that they can use it as though it were a provisional motor cycle licence and have no need to take the test.

If any hon. Members have their driving licence with them, and happen to have it merely as a result of having passed a test for one type of vehicle, namely, a car, they will see that the licence bears the words: This licence has the effect of a Provisional Licence to drive motor vehicles of all other groups". Mine also has a D and an E on it, so mine indicates that I have passed the motor cycle test as well. I therefore have no personal interest. I declare a lack of personal interest in the carrying of my amendment, as I would not be required to take a test as a result of the amendments being passed.

The effect of the amendment would be to place the car driver using his car driver's licence as a provisional motor cycle licence under exactly the same legal obligation to take the new two-part motor cycle test as anyone who had obtained a provisional motor cycle licence. I know that hon. Members who have not addressed themselves to this problem before must be surprised, or even astounded, that the Government should introduce such a draft provision.

In fairness, I should regale the House with the three reasons given by the Government in Committee for having this provision. Their first reason was that a car driver must have some road experience and therefore should he able to go on driving a motor cycle irrespective of how many times he fails the motor cycle test.

The second argument adduced by the Government was that car drivers are not like motor cyclists. They are prone to take tests and therefore they should not be put under the same restriction. The third argument—this will not come as a surprise to some of older Members, because they have heard earlier Conservative Ministers advance it—was that if they were to treat all road users equally in this respect it would involve Government officials in a great deal of work. The officials would have to write to all car licence holders to tell them that henceforth they could not use their licences indefinitely as motor cycle provisional licences.

I think that all the Government's arguments can be answered easily. As to the one about their experience, as an ex-motor cyclist, if I can put it that way, I first question whether the experience of driving a car is necessarily a suitable experience to qualify one to drive a motor bike, but I do not hang my objection to the Government's using this argument on the basis of motor cycle experience. If a car driver, by virtue of having passed a driving test, has the advantage of road experience, it should make it that much easier for him to pass a test on a motor cycle, so that is no reason for excusing him from taking a test.

9.45 pm

On the second argument, that a motorist is more likely to take a test than is a motor cyclist, in this case it will be no hardship for him to be put under the same requirement as motor cyclists to take the motor cycle test.

As to the third argument, I am quite fascinated at the proposition that we should not amend the Bill to treat motor cyclists and car drivers equally when they learn to ride a motor cycle, merely because it would mean that a number of officials employed by the Department of Transport would have to write to people. If we were to reject all legislation that required officials in Government Departments to send people any sort of documents or messages, or regulations, we would pass a great deal less legislation. I cannot think that the House regards that as a satisfactory sort of reason for carrying forward, in this Bill, this quite unjust and inequitable proposition.

The proposal rides roughshod over considerations of equality of treatment or justice to motor cyclists. Such a proposition put forward in respect of car drivers would be rejected as quite unfair and unreasonable. Therefore, I hope that the House will pass the amendment tonight and offer some elementary redress against the provision that is by any test monstrously unequal in its treatment of citizens on the basis of the vehicle on which they choose to learn to ride.

Mr. Fry

I first declare an interest as an adviser to the Motor Cyclists Association, which has made representations to my hon. Friends on this particular subject. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has done the House a service by putting forward the amendment tonight, because he has highlighted something that has tended to be forgotten during the passage of the Bill, except perhaps in speeches from my Back Bench colleagues.

There is a danger in the legislation that the Government are considering. They appear to be singling out motor cyclists to try to make some kind of example of them. I am aware of the number of accidents that young motor cyclists have. I am aware of the need for training; indeed, the industry itself has done a tremendous amount to try to encourage training, and it is bringing forward substantial amounts of money in order to make that possible. But there is a growing feeling—I detect it in my own postbag, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is receiving letters, too—that many motor cyclists fear that they have been picked upon and, even though the accident statistics are worrying, in view of the enormous increase in motor cycles they are by no means as bad as they would be if all motor cyclists could be tarred with the brush of being irresponsible or totally untrained.

My objection to the form that the amendment is taking is that far from correcting that viewpoint it compounds it. I would much rather that the right hon. Gentleman had moved in the other direction and tried to instil slightly more reality into the proposals that are in the Bill at the moment.

For example, as I understand it, the prohibitions upon the issue of a licence do not apply to mopeds. I should have thought that if we are going to have this kind of change in the law it should at least be continuous right through the range of two-wheeled machines. I feel that the Government have not made it clear why they are not including mopeds when we know perfectly well that many particularly untried riders use these as their first way of getting on the road.

Is my hon. and learned Friend absolutely satisfied, and can he give a guarantee, that the period that a motor cyclist will have to wait before gaining a test will be reasonably short? Over the past few years we have all heard numerous complaints about the long delays in the testing of all kinds of road vehicles, and if the Government are going to say to a certain group of people who want to go on the road that after a certain date they will not be able to use the machines that they have purchased with their own money, there is a strong obligation on the Government to ensure that at least people can take and retake a test within a reasonable period.

That is the kind of case that the industry wants put to the Minister. The industry has behaved in a responsible manner. It does not want to try totally to alter the legislation that is being put forward; it wants to try to see that the terms of the legislation are applied in a way that is realistic and does not appear to be designed purely to victimise motor cyclists.

I know that my hon. and learned Friend does not wish to do that, but there is a danger of the Government's action being interpreted in this way and that is why, although I cannot endorse the terms of the amendment, I thank the right hon. Member for having put it forward tonight.

Mr. Parris

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). The present proposals for dealing with provisional motor cycle licences are inequitable and they will not work in practice; they will cause an immense amount of trouble if my right hon. Friend decides to invoke them, and I am not sure that he will.

The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) proposes that as this inequity applies only to motor cyclists on provisional licences and does not apply to motor car drivers using their motor car licences to drive motor cycles, the inequity should be extended to cover motor car drivers. I do not think that by extending an inequity so that it covers every class of person one necessarily promotes equity, and for that reason I cannot support the amendment. I understand the spirit in which it was raised and I wish that we had an opportunity to discuss the wider issue of provisional motor cycle licences.

Mr. Waller

I think that my hon. and learned Friend has done a great service to the cause of road safety and to the future of motor cycling in putting forward the changes that are included in the clause. The alterations and the course that he is embarking on is extremely imaginative, and deserves every possible success.

I do not intend to repeat the arguments that I put forward on this point relating to the length of time that a provisional licence holder can ride before he passes a test, because I spoke on this at great length in Committee, but I would like to associate myself with the viewpoint expressed by my hon. Friends and to say that this is the one flaw in what is a good clause. I hope that when the length of time that is to be put forward is considered my hon. and learned Friend will give consideration to the arguments that have been expressed and will endeavour to ensure that this aspect of the new clause is as fair as possible to motor cyclists.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

I suppose that I ought to be happy that my critics are divided amongst themselves. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) believes that he has identified an injustice. He therefore suggests that that injustice should be extended to other car drivers. That is not a view that commends itself to my hon. Friends, but I will tackle the serious point that everybody is making.

Obviously, there are hon. Members who are not altogether happy about the requirements that we are proposing, for which clause 23 paves the way, whereby a holder of a provisional motor cycle licence will have two years within which to pass the second part of the new two-part Department of Transport test arrangements, and if he does not pass that test within two years there will be a year within which he is not able to ride motor cycles at all before he can have a provisional licence once more.

Doubts are being expressed about this two years on, one year off system, as some people have called it, although I hope to satisfy the House that, looked at as it will work in practice, it is not a new ban or a new penalty. It is actually a commonsense road safety measure.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I understood the Minister to say that if a motor cyclist did not take the test within two years he could be banned for a year. We all know of the gross maladministration and neglect of Swansea, the computer and the hon. and learned Gentleman's Department, which for about three years did not know whether they were coming or going. They could not answer letters, let alone get the thing going. If a motor cyclist is able and willing to take the test but, because of the gross maladministration and neglect of the Department, finds that because he did not get his test within the two years—not through his fault, but through the fault of the Department—must he stand down for 12 months?

Mr. Clarke

The performance of Swansea is greatly improved compared with what it was. The level of complaints reaching me about Swansea is certainly very much less than arose from Swansea a few years ago. Secondly, the booking of driving tests is no part of Swansea's responsibility in any event. It is done by the local driving test officers. Therefore, Swansea will not have a hand in this. I shall return in due course to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) about the length of time that people have to wait for tests where they are being booked.

As I have said, I appreciate that a feeling has been expressed to hon. Members by some of the motor cycle interests that the motor cyclist is somehow being persecuted, singled out and not understood by the Government in producing their road safety proposals. That is not the case. We have no intention whatever of discriminating against motor cyclists. We have no feelings of disapproval whatever towards motor cycling as a hobby. We are motivated only by concern about the terrifying accident figures that are being experienced in this country, particularly among young, inexperienced motor cyclists.

The first point that I should like to make is that all our measures are directed only at the beginner who is in the process of acquiring an expertise and road sense to go safely on the road. The experienced motor cyclist, including the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, who has passed his motor cycle test, will not be affected or inhibited by any of our proposals.

There was a case, however, for looking at the motor cycle area again because, although my hon. friend the Member for Wellingborough was quite right when he said that there is increased motor cycle usage, which in part leads to higher accident figures, the present accident record of the motor cycle is far worse than for other vehicles. It is a more dangerous and exposed vehicle and requires a given level of expertise to manage it. Other things being equal, it is estimated that it is roughly 30 times more dangerous to ride a motor cycle on British roads than it is to drive a motor car. The unfortunate results are that more than 1,000 people are being killed each year in motor cycle accidents, and something had to be done to try to decrease that very large-scale loss of young life.

Mr. Sheerman

May I make this point to the hon. and learned Gentleman? He knows very well that I consider compulsory training off the road before someone takes a bike on to the road to be essential today. I support the amendments that are before us this evening, but what worries me and worries many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, is not only whether this is a practical suggestion but the question of enforceability. There is growing evidence of young people ignoring the regulation. If their licences are taken away, they will still drive. That is the problem. We do not want a generation of young motor cyclists, who could not care less about the law in any respect, being on the road and free-wheeling without a licence.

Mr. Clarke

The question of enforceability applies when it comes to driving without a licence generally. Obviously, penalties follow people are discovered to be driving without a licence. The arrangements which we are proposing are no different from the existing arrangements which apply when the police have to enforce the law and detect people who are riding unlicensed on the roads.

Let me answer the points made about balance and singling out motor cyclists. All that we are trying to achieve in the case of motor cyclists is that most of them will move as quickly as is reasonably possible to get to the standard required to get through a Department of Transport test.

In getting up to that standard and getting through the test, we also want most of them to have some kind of skilled training. We think that this is the best way of improving their safety on the road fairly quickly and the best way of getting them up to the required standard.

10 pm

Under the present arrangements, car drivers do not need any inducement to do either thing. Car drivers, driving on provisional licences, are required to be accompanied at all times by qualified drivers. That leads most provisional licence-holding car drivers to seek to get through their tests as quickly as possible in order to have complete freedom to use their cars and to go on the roads unrestrained. No such requirement can be imposed on motor cyclists. We cannot make requirements that they should have a qualified licence holder on the pillion all the time because in many cases that would increase the danger of inexperienced drivers. In practice, we also find that car drivers go for professional training. About 95 per cent. of car drivers who present themselves for a test have gone to a school of motoring, often paying substantial fees to a driving instructor to get themselves up to the required standard.

No one knows what proportion of motor cyclists go for any kind of training course. The best "guesstimate" is that only about 15 per cent. of new riders do so. Far too many rely on picking up the skill for themselves, with a few tips from friends on the road.

Our arrangements therefore propose inducements for the beginner motor cyclist to take a course of training and, within a reasonable time, to reach a standard required to pass the present Department of Transport test. The new arrangements will comprise two parts of a test. Both parts will have to be passed within two years. This is intended as an inducement to the sensible motor cyclist to get through the two tests as quickly as possible. The first part will be a new simple test of road handling off the road on a large flat area. It will usually be carried out by approved training organisations. The sensible motor cyclist, proceeding to get up to the full licence within the two years that the regulations permit, will, I trust, take the commonsense approach and get in touch with an approved training organisation as soon as possible. That training organisation will put him through a course designed to take him through the first test. We also hope that motor cyclists will undergo training designed to take them all the way up to the Department of Transport test, which will have to be taken within two years if our regulations are made.

Mr. Fry

Will my hon. and learned Friend address himself to the young person who passes the car test first and then goes on to ride a motor cycle without any form of training? Is he not in almost as great danger as the present motor cyclist who has no training?

Mr. Clarke

It is true that the arrangement will not apply to someone who holds a full licence to drive a car, a motor tricycle—the Reliant-type vehicle—or a moped. It is the apparent anomaly to which the amendment draws attention that if one has a full licence for one of those vehicles one will be able, as now, to ride a motor cycle with a provisional licence and no time limit will be imposed. The only new limitation that the Bill will impose on full licence holders for a car, tricycle or moped is that they will be confined, probably from October 1982, to the new, smaller size, learner motor cycle and will not be able to go beyond it unless they get through a full Department of Transport test.

The right hon. Gentleman indicated the arguments that I used in Committee. Although they do not appeal to him, they still strike me as sensible and defensible reasons for our proposals. Someone who holds a full licence on a car has gone through the full Department of Transport test. More than that, before actually presenting himself for the test he will have ridden round with a qualified driver accompanying him for a considerable time, acquiring ability in the handling of a car and actually acquiring experience of road conditions, road craft and familiarity with traffic. Although passing the Department of Transport test entitles him only to go for a provisional licence for a motor cycle, he is in a different category from the total beginner, who does not have a full licence for anything and chooses to get a provisional licence for a motor cycle for what may be his first excursion in any kind of powered vehicle on the road.

Mr. Sheerman

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that his hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) gets to the heart of the problem? I believe that many of the recommendations and much of the Bill are to be applauded in terms of motor cycle training and the new two-part test. However, the crunch issue is that nothing that is proposed in relation to the novice rider who is most likely to be among the 1,100 young people killed, nothing that the Bill provides or suggests, will make any difference to the young man or woman getting on a motor cycle and driving on the public roads and killing himself or herself. The crucial time is the first six months. That is when such people generally get killed.

Secondly, if the Minister is right in saying that the provisional licence is built into a driving licence for a car, together with roadcraft and all the other things—I quite agree about that—that does not get over the central anomaly that the Government have failed to tackle—that is, that the most dangerous form of transport on our roads today is the one that is most available to young people.

Mr. Clarke

The hon. Gentleman says that he is on the same point as my hon. Friend for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), but in fact he is on a totally different point, and is arguing quite the opposite argument from that which my hon. Friend has been putting forward. I was dealing with the point of the amendment which my hon. Friend was also dealing with, which is why we are proposing a slightly different treatment for the holder of a full car licence, full motor tricycle licence and full moped licence. I was pointing out the distinction between someone who has got himself all the way through the necessary road experience and the Department of Transport test in one of those vehicles, and then decides to go out as a provisional licence holder on a motor cycle. I was talking about the difference between that person and someone who is a total beginner and does not have a full licence for anything.

Mr. Sheerman

rose——

Mr. Clarke

Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes again, let me move on from the point that he is raising, which is beside the amendment. As I recall, he was alone in Standing Committee in feeling that we should not allow anyone to go on to a road at all on a motor cycle until he had had some form of compulsory training. Although I understand the motives that led the hon. Gentleman to that view, and that he is convinced that compulsory training is required off the road before anyone is allowed forth, that would be a very dramatic change from the present system. That change would not be supported by any of the training organisations.

We believe that the package that we are proposing, which, as I say, amounts to inducements to go in for training—inducements that will lead people, within the two years that we propose to require of them, through the part 1 test of road handling off the road, on to the part 2 test, the Department of Transport test, in the hands, we hope, of a training organisation—will be a drastic improvement. It is not necessary to go as far as the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Sheerman

May I correct the hon. and learned Gentleman on something?

Mr. Clarke

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman for the last time.

Mr. Sheerman

All right—for the last time. Perhaps I may correct the hon. and learned Gentleman. I was not the only person in the Standing Committee who thought thus. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench were with me on that matter, as he should recall. Also, I should like to point out to the junior Minister that Kawasaki, a major Japanese importer of motor cycles into this country, does not believe in this two-part test but believes that compulsory training off the road is essential. Graham Chatham, the biggest dealer in Scotland, believes that it is a death certificate unless we train young men and women off the road previously. There is tremendous cumulative evidence. It is wrong to suggest that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I on the Front Bench were the only people who perceived the problem and were willing to act in a dramatic manner in order to stop these deaths.

Mr. Clarke

I am sorry that I had forgotten one of the comparatively rare occasions when the hon. Gentleman was in accord with his own Front Bench on the question of motor cycle safety. I am extremely impressed by this demonstration of solidarity this evening. The speech that introduced the amendment was complaining that the Government were persecuting motor cyclists, and the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government are not going far enough in restricting the ability of motor cyclists to go on the road until they have had some form of training. If the amendment builds a bridge between them, I am impressed by it to that extent, but I do not think that it has a great deal else to commend it.

I hope that I have explained the reasoning behind the policy. Of course, the policy will get into difficulties if delays in getting bookings for driving tests mean that the two years operate as a penalty, even for responsible motor cyclists who are trying to get through both parts of the test and cannot arrange the tests in time. We are taking only a regulation-making power. We could adjust the time. The Government are merely being frank and saying that the present intention is wo years on and one year off. That is our intention because we are succeeding in minimising the delays in booking Department of Transport tests. We inherited enormous delays throughout the country because the recruitment of driving examiners had not kept up with the demand. We therefore exempted recruitment of driving examiners from all restrictions on recruitment of Civil Service staff into our department. We are building up a growing corps of driving examiners, and the average waiting time for tests is coming down satisfactorily, although serious problems still exist in the metropolitan area.

We shall not introduce the new two-part testing system until January 1982. If present trends continue, delays will have been reduced even further by that time. It will be two years after that, of course, before the first people will lose out if they fail the test. So we are talking about early 1984. The first part test should be carried out by raining organisations, and by that time the Department of Transport will be able to satisfy the demand for the second part tests without unreasonable delay.

Mr. Fry

In parts of the country where there is a disproportionate waiting time, will my hon. and learned Friend's Department make every effort to ensure that there is standardisation of waiting lists before the regulations are put into effect?

Mr. Clarke

There is nothing to stop people from applying for a test outside the area where they live. People who live in the metropolitan area would be well advised to consider towns just outside the area. However, that is only a short-term expedient. The idea is to get waiting lists down to an acceptable level throughout the country, and we are devoting particular attention to the London metropolitan area, where the worst problems now occur. Clearly, we shall try to get examiners up to the necessary standards in places where at present we are not meeting the demand.

Sir Albert Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

In my area there can be a delay of up to six months. If a person fails a test and cannot book another test within the period because an examiner is not available, does he have to wait a year, even though it is not his fault?

Mr. Clarke

It will be necessary for the motor cyclist to book a test within the relevant period and get through it, but if he gets a provisional motor cycle licence and realises that he has two years in which to pass both hurdles the sensible motor cyclist will get on with the first part by getting in touch almost immediately with the training organisation that can take him through the course as soon as possible to allow him time for two or three shots at the full Department of Transport test. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman).

People who apply common sense and judgment to the proposals will get themselves on to a training course early on and tackle the course within the two-year limit that we are laying down. We are confident that the training organisations will come forward and obtain approval for the part one tests and satisfy the considerable demand. We are also confident that by 1982–84 we shall be able to satisfy the demand for the second part tests without unreasonable delay.

I am in no doubt the desirability of the package, because something is needed to make young motor cyclists pass tests and to get rid of the present unfortunate practice whereby too many motor cyclists carry on for ever on L-plates without any serious intention of passing even the present Department of Transport tests. The needs of the situation are sufficient to justify this regulation—making power, and I commend it to the House.

10.15 pm
Mr. Booth

The amendment has enabled us to range over a number of the practical difficulties that arise from the motor cycle provisions of clause 23 and some of the resentment and discrimination that arise from the clause, as well as some of the wider injustices. I make no complaints; I referred to some of them in introducing the amendment. But I ask Members of the House, before voting, to consider not why that issue is related to clause 23 but the very simple and direct purpose and effect of the amendment. All that the amendment does is to impose upon one group of people who ride around on motor cycles with one type of provisional licence the same requirement as is placed upon another group who ride around 'with L-plates with another type of provisional licence.

The Under-Secretary of State gave the game away in his final sentences. He said that what we want to do is to stop people riding around indefinitely with L-plates. That is exactly what the Bill fails to do, because once a person has a licence for another category of vehicle he will be able to ride around indefinitely with L-plates on a motor cycle. What I and my hon. Friends have done, perhaps unwittingly, in tabling the amendment is to achieve the Under-Secretary's purpose by saying that if regulations are made preventing one group from riding around indefinitely with L-plates, no other group shall escape; they will all be required to take the test within the same period or face a ban. It does not deal with all the injustices and inequities, but it removes one which, on the Under-Secretary's own submission, is an important one and one which the Government are seeking to deal with in the Bill.

Mr. Sheerman

I should like to add to that, because this is something about which I feel very strongly. The Under-Secretary made a very unfair point in suggesting that I have been voting out of unison with my colleagues on many occasions. This is a non-party part of the Bill, and on two or three occasions, on drinking and driving I differed from my own Front Bench, which I think was a quite reasonable stance to take. At times, all men of goodwill on the Committee voted together.

What this amendment has done for the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary is to clarify their minds beautifully. We must cut through all the verbiage in the Bill. The intention, surely, was to produce proposals that would prevent 1,100 young men and women being killed on motor cycles. This is the most dangerous form of transport on public roads. It is 30 times more dangerous than any other. The Under-Secretary said this very quickly, and this is becoming a habit. I noticed at Question Time today that there was talk of expenditure of £5 billion instead of the real figure in thousands of millions. It is 30 times more dangerous to drive a motor cycle than to drive any other form of transport. It is a death licence for a young son or daughter to get on to the road and be killed.

In the old days it was the traditional diseases that killed—polio, cholera and all the illnesses that came from bad sewerage systems, bad water and other such things. The good, sensible parents had their children inoculated against those diseases. The Opposition say, and we have some support, however muted, from the Government side, that the essential objective of the Secretary of State must be to stop 1,100 young men and women being killed every year, but his proposals will not achieve that objective.

We must change the system that allows young men and women to buy a shiny black and chrome motor cycle on their sixteenth birthday and zoom off to the funeral parlour. The Bill will not prevent that. We must train youngsters off the road before they get on to the road. Everything that the Under-Secretary said about the training of car drivers reinforces my belief that he has failed to meet the central problem.

The Budget, with its 20p a gallon on petrol, will drive more young men and women—indeed, middle-aged men and women—on to two-wheeled transport. The result will be more deaths, and we cannot afford that loss of talent, potential and manpower. The Bill was an opportunity to save those people. That opportunity has not been taken, and that is why I support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 286.

Question accordingly negatived.

10.30 pm
Mr. Kenneth Clarke

I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 18, line 19, at end insert— '(7) In section 85(2)(b) of the 1972 Act (fees for driving tests) after "such amount as may be specified in the regulations" there is inserted "or, in such cases as may be prescribed, specified by such person as may be prescribed".'. This is a minor and technical Government amendment, covering a defect that has been discovered in this part of the Bill. It concerns the arrangements that we are proposing to make for the new part 1 test, which will usually be carried gut by authorised testing organisations. We have already issued a consultation document to people interested in those matters, setting out the sort of criteria that we shall set down for organisations that wish to carry out the test and suggesting the nature of the test itself. We have made it clear that our present intention is that the fee for the part 1 test will be set at a level chosen by the approved organisation.

We have discovered that without an amendment to the law it would not be possible to do that. Therefore, the amendment provides the necessary powers to enable those approved testing organisations to set their fees when they carry out part 1 tests on our behalf.

Mr. Sheerman

We had a lengthy and revealing debate on the matter in Committee. The Government told us a great deal about how they envisaged part 1 of the test being organised and who would have permission to run it, but I am not sure how the Government organisation will be involved and who will set the fee.

Does the amendment mean that the Government are offering to train a certain number of people? Perhaps the parallel with the lender of last resort does not apply, but where a potential motor cyclist cannot get anyone to train him it appears that the Government will offer a scheme at a certain fee. Does the amendment enable the fee to be set at any level, a prohibitive level, or an average level?

Mr. Clarke

The Department of Transport will carry out some part 1 testing, and for the purpose will probably use our heavy goods vehicle driver testing sites, of which there are about 60. A person will be able to book a part 1 test with the Department, but we shall not offer training. A test facility will be available only for people who choose to come direct to us and pay our fee.

The Secretary of State will set the Department's fee. We have not yet decided exactly what it will be, but it will follow the usual practice of recovering the cost to the taxpayer and the Department of the testing arrangements.

We expect that the bulk of learner motor cyclists will seek to take the part 1 test with approved training organisations. We have set out our first thoughts about the basis upon which organisations will be able to qualify for our approval—the criteria and standards that we shall expect them to meet.

Where the part 1 test is conducted by an approved training organisation it will be left to that organisation to set its fee for the test. In practice, I suspect that many will include the test fee in the fee for the training course that they require the applicant to go through before arriving at the standard necessary to take the test. The amendment merely ensures that it will be lawful for the approved training organisations to set their fees in that way.

Amendment agreed to.

Forward to