Newly Qualified Drivers (Hansard, 12 April 1994)

§ Mr. David Amess (Basildon)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require newly qualified drivers to display on the vehicles they are driving an indication that they are newly qualified; and for connected purposes. The purpose of the Bill is to improve road safety by measures specifically relating to newly qualified drivers. It is a two-part Bill which attempts to combat public fears and problems of road safety. Part I requires the display of a plate for one year, following the passing of the official test, and part II reduces the maximum penalty points for the same period from 12 to nine.

Let me say from the outset that my wife maintains that she is a better driver than I. She passed her test on the first occasion and I passed mine on the second. More than two decades later, we are still driving, although, when we are together, I invariably drive. When I asked my wife why that should be the case, she said that it is to enable her to give me continual instructions on how I should be driving. It would be less than gallant of me to describe such behaviour in a lady as that of a classic back-seat driver.

Whatever can be said of my driving or that of my wife, both of us remember graphically what it was like to be a newly qualified driver and how nerve-racking it could be in the early days when one drove alone, especially if one had no motorway experience. A recent study shows that almost three quarters of newly qualified drivers on the road are under 25 years of age. My Bill would mean that the probationary period would apply to all newly qualified drivers, regardless of age.

The whole purpose of the Bill is to reduce the number of road accidents. That may seem a difficult objective to achieve, because accidents are often down to the unpredictable behaviour of human beings. Nevertheless, over recent years the Department of Transport has embarked upon a host of measures, after taking careful advice, and I believe that they have made a substantial contribution to the reduction of road accidents in general.

I pay a warm tribute to all those who have been involved with effective road safety measures, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic and, especially, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who has twice tried to introduce a similar measure. I hope that with my Bill it will be a case of third time lucky.

It is difficult to find adequate words to describe the horror that confronts our policemen every day of the week when they call to tell relatives that their loved ones have been injured, maimed or, worse still, killed. Such events and the traumas associated with them leave a scar on everyone involved. On what I believe to be an all-party issue, it must make sense for Parliament to do all in its power to reduce the likelihood of such tragedies.

Seventy-six per cent. of the accidental deaths of 16 to 19-year-olds result from road accidents. Even more shocking is the fact that drivers aged 17 to 21 are responsible for more than 1,000 deaths a year as a result of vehicle accidents. That age group represents only 10 per cent. of licence holders, yet its members are involved in 20 per cent. of all accidents. An 18-year-old is three times more likely to be involved in a car accident than a 31 48-year-old; every mile driven by a 17-year-old is seven times more likely to result in an accident than a mile driven by a middle-aged man.

What are the reasons for those shocking statistics? I do not believe that passing an official driving test is very hard for many people, although I fully accept that some people who would make excellent drivers suffer from nerves when faced with the test. However, most people taking the test are younger and more dextrous. The test can be taken and passed so quickly today.

Does passing really mean that a person is fit and equipped with the necessary skills to drive safely on all our roads? I fear not. For example, it has always seemed extraordinary to me that some people pass their tests yet appear to have no knowledge whatever of the basic workings of a motor vehicle. That is not helpful when we are trying to ensure that motorists drive safely.

I freely admit that no driving test in any country can be more than a poor reflection of the real driving world. The Metropolitan police believe that one of the biggest problems is the misconception of what a driver's licence means. All that it really means is that newly qualified drivers can now learn to drive on their own. The misconception causes newly qualified people to think that they are good drivers, who can drive like experienced drivers, so they are injured and killed at a disproportionate rate.

All the factors that I have outlined support the need for a probation plate for one year. We can argue about the letter that should be displayed on the plate, but the Bill's aim is to reduce the total of deaths and injuries by using a distinctive mark on vehicles and introducing tighter penalties.

Newly qualified drivers' reactions are much slower in potential accident situations. The new plate seeks to minimise the resulting dangers by alerting other drivers. Following consultation, the Secretary of State would decide what letter would be designated for the plate for the one-year mandatory display.

Even with all that, it would be necessary to introduce the second part of the Bill, which is an attempt to lower the penalty point allowance for newly qualified drivers from 12 to nine points. That would provide an incentive for new drivers to take much more care and cultivate good road manners. Last week, the Automobile Association said that a lower points allowance was a good idea. Only one in six drivers are newly qualified, but they are involved in one in four reported accidents. The AA believes that something certainly needs to be done about the problem, and that the Bill is a step in the right direction.

The AA is not alone in its support; the Metropolitan Police also endorses its views. They are totally supportive of a reduction from 12 to nine penalty points on the ground that that would lead to more responsible driving. They quote the old saying that the safest driver is the commercial vehicle driver with nine points on his licence. If we transferred that axiom to the newly qualified driver with a lower point maximum, it would still hold true.

The Magistrates Association also supports the principle of one year's probation for new drivers and a reduction in the maximum penalty points during that period. The 32 association told me that measures involving new drivers, as proposed in my Bill, would reduce over-confidence and bring about improvements in road safety.

Finally, other countries have evidence to prove the value in terms of road safety of the measures that I am proposing. I cannot believe that, with British organisational skills, we would find it difficult to administer a life-saving scheme. It is not my intention to spoil the joy of a family when one of its members passes the driving test; rather, it is to prevent the chilling knock on the door when a policeman arrives with tragic news. I commend the Bill to the House.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

I oppose the proposed Bill, in the same way that I opposed the similar one introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).

The whole House will share the respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) for the police when they must knock on a stranger's door and bring bad news about a traffic crash. We should stop talking about traffic accidents and talk about crashes because we know a great deal about the causes.

I do not want to focus on my hon. Friend's proposed reduction in the number of penalty points that would be allowed. I want to stick to the advertising of new qualification by what is normally referred to as a P for probationary or R for restricted plate. My hon. Friend rightly did not share with the House whether he thought that the plate that should be displayed would have restrictions associated with it.

Some people argue that one should not be able to drive on motorways; some argue that one should not be able to drive at more than 50 mph; and some argue that one should not be able to have more than one passenger. There is a whole series of options. I object to the principle on which my hon. Friend based his argument. As far as I am aware, there is no substantial body of evidence that having a probationary or restricted plate on the back or front of a car makes any difference.

For some time, part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—has had a similar plate with various restrictions. When I served as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Northern Ireland Office, having worked as a junior Minister in the Department of Transport, I asked for a study that would show what appeared to be the impact of introducing that requirement—I think that it has been there for about 20 years. The answer is that no one knows.

For some time, the Department of Transport has been examining whether a substantiated claim can be made for having a special plate. We have not yet seen that evidence and I doubt whether it will be conclusive when it comes.

I shall share with the House two articles from "Road Accidents Great Britain 1992: The Casualty Report". That report contains the good news that since 1986—the European Year of Road Safety—the number of road deaths has fallen by more than 1,000. Of course, in the past year, the number has fallen by another 400. That means that many of the actions that have been taken in terms of road-user behaviour, the vehicle and the road environment have clearly been immensely successful.

The article by Kathryn Markey shows that drivers aged between 17 and 20 of either sex are involved in relatively 33 more accidents—I use the word "crashes"—on minor roads, in the dark, away from junctions, on bends and when no other vehicle is involved.

In any of those circumstances—in the dark when one would not be able to see the plate; on minor roads when one would not see much traffic; and away from junctions and bends, or when no other vehicle is involved—I do not se[...] any scientific basis on which one could set up a disprovable hypothesis that would tell us what the effect of the plate would be.

On the question of high-risk offenders, the subsequent article, by Dr. Jeremy Broughton, considers people who have to requalify because they have been caught once driving at two and a half times the legal alcohol limit or twice, during a 10-year period, driving above the legal limit. The peak age for these people is 27. Unless, for some reason, it is a habit desperately concentrated among those who passed the driving test at the age of 26, the logic behind my hon. Friend's proposition could be that anyone aged 26 should display a plate—26 or 27 being the peak age in severe cases involving drinking and driving.

One could argue about displaying plates at different times of the day. Females tend to have accidents in the morning or evening rush hour, whereas the time in the case of males tends to be around 10 o'clock at night. People driving vehicles that are owned by companies tend to have twice or three times as many crashes as individuals, of almost any age, driving their own vehicles.

The proposition ought to be that we should go on doing what has been shown to work. I refer to some of the ideas of the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety, to one of whose presidents—the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who is in the House—as to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), I pay tribute. The things that have been shown to work are those that influence people's behaviour. The behavioural research led by the university of Reading, and funded originally by General Accident in one of its really great commercial investments in the protection of young people's lives, indicates that young drivers do not understand what a hazard is. Putting a plate on either end of a car would not change that.

However, it might change if the media could be persuaded to use interesting means—perhaps a five-minute spot each week—of showing what people get wrong. 34 Colour magazines, which contain articles with such titles as "A Day in the Life of … " or "A Meal in the Life of…", might carry something entitled "A Crash in the Life of… ". That might explain what had led to a body-breaking, or at least a metal-bending, crash.

The Transport Research Laboratory has contributed immensely to cutting the number of casualties from 5,400 to 3,800. Here, I question whether it is sensible to go through with the idea of privatising the laboratory. I believe that, if it is privatised, fewer Transport Ministers will rely on the scientific evidence.

The combined work of vehicle engineers and road engineers, as well as of the police in filling in the "Statistics 19" form which provides the basic information in the "Casualty Report" to which I have referred, can lead to a continued reduction in the numbers of people killed and seriously injured.

We can achieve something similar to what was achieved in the case of drunken driving. Young people used to be twice as bad as their fathers but became half as bad. Indeed, we might be able to get below 3,000 deaths a year. That would be almost a third of the peak level, even though the volume of traffic has increased dramatically.

I realise that the intentions behind my hon. Friend's proposed Bill are good. However, I advise the House, and I certainly advise the Department of Transport, to pay no attention to the measure. It is not the way forward. There are many other effective means of cutting the number of casualties.