HL Deb 11 July 1960 vol 225 cc9-20

2.55 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, this Bill may seem to your Lordships a comparatively modest measure, consisting as it does of only two substantive clauses, but I am sure that any measure will be sympathetically considered by your Lordships which has as its object a reduction in the fearful toll of deaths on the road. Your Lordships will see from the Title of the Bill that it deals with the driving of motor cycles, and I would remind you that the motor cycle is relatively the most dangerous vehicle on the road: for a given mileage it is liable to have three times the number of accidents that a private car has. I hope to show your Lordships that, although this Bill is short in length, it can make a significant contribution towards solving the problem.

It is a Private Member's Bill introduced in another place by Admiral Hughes Hallett, the Member for Croydon, North-East, and I might mention that my honourable and gallant friend not only had a distinguished career at sea but is himself also a highly skilled motor cyclist. My own qualifications, unfortunately, are restricted to a short period during the war when I had a motor cycle on loan from the War Office. But those few months were sufficient to convince me, even painfully, of the dangerous nature of the beast. The Bill was originally devised to implement some of the recommendations of the Committee on Road Safety which reported in July, 1957, on the minimum age for motor cyclists. But before going into the recommendations made by this Committee, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to define the different types of motor cycle to which I shall be referring.

May I start from the bottom and work up?—that is to say, from the least powerful machine. The first is the moped—and I apologise to your Lordships for using a term that has not yet reached the Oxford English Dictionary, but there is no other convenient term to describe this type of vehicle. It is really an ordinary pedal cycle strengthened and adapted to hold a small motor the cylinder capacity of which does not exceed 50 c.c., and its speed therefore is limited to a maximum of 25 m.p.h. The second class, going up the scale, is the light motor cycle, which, for present purposes, is defined as a motor cycle with an engine capacity of less than 250 c.c., and therefore with a maximum speed of about 65 m.p.h.; and into this class, of course, falls the ever increasingly popular motor scooter. Finally, there is the heavy motor cycle of over 250 c.c., which is capable of very high speeds—in fact, speeds of over 100 m.p.h. I would remind your Lord-ships that under present legislation the minimum age for driving all types of motor cycle is sixteen. All drivers are subject to a driving test before the issue of a full licence, but anyone on reaching the age of sixteen can acquire a temporary licence and can go on the roads.

If I may revert to the Report of the Committee on Road Safety, with your Lordships' permission I should like to quote the first three recommendations of that Committee. They say:

  1. "(1) No justification is seen on present evidence for raising generally the minimum age of sixteen years for riding motor cycles.
  2. (2) Surveys should be undertaken to obtain further data on accident rates for motor cyclists of different ages.
  3. (3) In order to encourage young persons to start riding on the smaller types of machines, the minimum age limit should be reduced to fifteen years for mopeds…and increased to seventeen years for motor cycles…of over 250 c.c."
The underlying reasoning of this last recommendation, which also underlies this Bill and to which I shall be referring again later, was that young riders should learn to ride on the less powerful types of machine and graduate slowly to the more powerful and heavier types.

As a result of the Committee's second recommendation, that surveys should be undertaken, the Road Research Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research commissioned a survey by the Social Survey Division of the Central Office of Information Their report took two years to prepare, and covers some 10,000 motor cyclists of all ages and some 5,000 accidents to motor cyclists under the age of 21. If I may have your Lordships' permission again to quote, I should like to read from some of their findings. They say: The older the rider the lower the accident rate, but in every case the difference can be accounted for entirely in terms of riding experience and size of machine. Thus there is no evidence that age as such has any effect. Motor cyclists with less than six months' experience have about twice as many accidents, both per head and per mile, as those with over six-months' experience. After six months there is no appreciable sign of a continuing fall in the accident rate. The more powerful the machine, the higher the accident rate. On this basis, light motor cycles have six times the accident rate of mopeds, and the largest motor cycles have twice the rate of the light motor cycles. If accidents involving only slight injury are excluded, the above conclusions are virtually unaffected except that the advantage in favour of mopeds becomes even more marked. It is already known from accident statistics that for the heavier machine a higher proportion of accidents are serious or fatal. Thus the Survey has established three main points: first, that experience is more important than age as a factor affecting the accident rate; secondly, that the first six months of riding a motor cycle are the most dangerous, and, thirdly, that the lighter the machine the less liability to accident and the less serious the accident is. It is these principles that the Bill seeks to apply. It seeks to establish a gradual progression from the less powerful machine to the more powerful, so that in practice the progression might work out something as follows. Under the age of fifteen a young person would be riding perhaps a bicycle. At the age of fifteen, if the present Bill becomes law and if the Minister of Transport were to make the necessary regulations following the passing of the Bill, the young person could ride one of these mopeds which, I repeat, are merely powered bicycles with a top speed of 25 miles per hour. Then at the age of sixteen he could acquire a light motor cycle under 250 c.c.; but not until he had passed his test on that light motor cycle could he acquire one of the heavy motor cycles capable of really high speeds. In practice, the period before which these people take their test is approximately six months, which takes in very neatly the findings of the survey, so that for the dangerous six-months' period the young rider is restricted to the lighter type of motor cycle.

To put this graduated scale into effect, two steps are required. The first is to lower the present minimum age for driving a moped to fifteen, and the second is to restrict the issue of a provisional licence to motor cycles of under 250 c.c. These are the two provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 empowers the Minister of Transport, by regulation, to reduce the minimum age for driving motor cycles of any class or description to fifteen years. I am sure that your Lordships will find that this clause in its present form gives too wide powers to the Minister of Transport. It was never intended by the Minister to reduce the age for driving any motor cycle to fifteen, with the exception of mopeds. In order to make this completely clear, I shall be moving an Amendment on the Committee stage restricting his power to reduce the age to fifteen to mopeds only. Also, of course, this clause only empowers the Minister of Transport to take this action by regulation, and does not compel him to do so. I understand that the Minister does not intend to take this action immediately, but requires to make further investigations before doing so. But I expect that my noble friend Lord Chesham, who is speaking for Her Majesty's Government, will explain this in greater detail.

Clause 2 of the Bill restricts the issue of a provisional licence to the driving of a motor cycle of under 250 c.c. This is a simply applied provision and one which I think will help to reduce the number of accidents occurring in the present dangerous period of the first six months. It would mean, if enacted, that from July 1, 1961, no one will be able to ride a heavy motor cycle with "L" plates, and no one completely inexperienced will be able to ride these enormously powerful and dangerous machines.

This is the extent of this small but, I think, important Bill, and I hope that your Lordships, who have always shown such an interest in road safety matters, will view it with favour, especially as it deals with accidents to young people. These have been shown by several surveys to occur particularly to inexperienced riders, and the whole import of the Bill is to ensure that a young rider gains experience gradually on less powerful machines before attempting to drive a heavy motor cycle. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will give this Bill a sympathetic reception. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)

3.10 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)

My Lords, it may be convenient if at this stage I give you Lordships the Government views on this Bill, and I do not think I need take up a great deal of your Lordships time in doing so. In short, and generally, we welcome this Bill as having a certain contribution to make to road safety; and naturally anything which is likely to make a contribution to road safety is to be welcomed. Having, I am quite frankly happy to say, a little more experience of motor cycling in my life than the noble Lord who so eloquently explained the Bill, I have often wondered whether his statement that the motor cycle was a "dangerous beast" of itself was entirely correct, because I have often wondered whether it was not something to do with the chap on the top, which seems to me a very important element.

As the noble Lord said, our view must be very much coloured by the findings of the Committee to which he referred, and particularly to the, as I think, very important point that experience is more important than age. The first six months, we know, are especially dangerous, and that is obviously the time on which to concentrate. The recommendation was that there should be progression from smaller to larger machines in the process of gaining experience, and it seems clear, in fact, that the heavier machines are more dangerous. Possibly this is because, the machines being faster, accidents which occur are more serious and secondly, perhaps, because they tend to cover a greater mileage. Therefore, it would seem that the lighter machines are safer and that, as the noble Lord suggested, the moped, because its maximum engine capacity is only 50 c.c., plus the fact that it usually has pedals to help to propel it in certain circumstances, is safer. There does seem to be some claim that the moped enjoys a safer record than other sorts of machines, and I think perhaps there is a case, in view of the findings of the Committee, that lowering the age limit to fifteen would act as an inducement for young riders to go about gaining their experience in the way the Committee suggests.

We do not feel finally convinced, however, about the safety of the lighter motor cycles, and we do not quite feel convinced that all the arguments are valid in one way only. And if this Bill passes into law my right honourable friend has no intention of using this power at the present time, and he would not use it until such time as he was quite convinced that it was the right thing to do and that it would be an addition to road safety, rather than the opposite. Clause 2, on the other hand, is, we think, a valuable contribution and a good way of doing it. For those reasons, in general we support the Bill.

3.15 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill said it had only two substantive clauses. That is quite right. One is worthy of commendation. The other I condemn out of hand without any equivocation whatsoever. I cannot understand the logic, at a time such as this, in wanting to reduce to fifteen the age at which it is permissible for children to ride motor cycles. I can only address myself to what is in the Bill. I noticed that the noble Lord who introduced this Bill—and may I say pleasantly, with courtesy, although not himself wholly convinced—said that if so-and-so happened, if the Minister does that, this will be the effect. The effect of this Bill is to make it legal for a boy of fifteen years of age to ride a motor cycle of 250 c.c. capacity. The noble Lord said that the lightweight machine of 250 c.c. capacity has a maximum speed of 65 m.p.h. May I tell him that the average 250 c.c. capacity machine in this country, the average production model, has a speed of 75 m.p.h., and in the 250 c.c. class in the T.T. race in the Isle of Man the average speed was 93½m.p.h. and the maximum about 95?

All the way through his speech in commendation the noble Lord talked about the moped. The moped is a pedal assisted bicycle of about 50 c.c. capacity and with a speed about 30 m.p.h. But it was at the Government's insistence that that was taken out of this Bill. The Government would not have anything to do with this Bill until that was taken out, and that was why protests went up from certain Members of another place that the Second Reading endorsed a principle, and that, through Government intervention, the whole principle of the Bill was altered when it went through the Committee stage. That was the complaint. But as the Minister knows as well as I do, it was his colleague, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, who insisted that the Government would not be tied to any specific capacity when they wanted to reduce to fifteen the age at which one could have a licence.

What is the merit in the moped? What is the merit in fifteen? You can do all the noble Lord has said about gradations, with which I agree, by leaving the irreducible limit of sixteen which appears in the 1960 Road Traffic Act at the present time. After all, let us be honest about this: the moped at the present time is a means of locomotion of ageing and elderly ladies and gentlemen who find it far too fatiguing to pedal. I had intended to put down an Amendment, "That this Bill be read a second time six months hence", but I think that the second clause has considerable merit. However, on the Committee stage I shall put down an Amendment to delete Clause 1. The Minister himself has said that the Minister of Transport does not intend to implement this provision for some considerable time. But it is in this Bill. I do not think it right for a Bill to be brought before Parliament in unmistakable terms and for the Minister then to say, "Well, of course, we do not intend to implement this for some considerable time ahead."

I hope I have not been guilty of exaggeration, but I would say that the first clause of this Bill is an affront to the public conscience of this country. Here are we, grappling with a road accident problem the like of which we have never had in our lives before; and here we come to the excuse that a boy aged fifteen and serving an apprenticeship should be allowed to ride a moped. A great many statistics and Reports of Committees, which to me are quite unimpressive, have all been quoted—they were quoted in another place and the noble Lord quoted them here. I will quote him a statistic which I think is just as valuable and rather more impressive than those. There appeared last Sunday in a reputable Sunday paper, theObserver, this passage: Records were broken in the United States during the Independence Day celebrations, Provisional figures of deaths in road accidents over the three-day week-end were 418, with more expected when final reports come in. The previous highest figure was for the 4th July week-end of 1955, when 407 people were killed. In England and Wales over the four-day Whitsun holiday at least 74 people died. With 68 million vehicles on the roads the United States had a figure of 6.14 deaths per million vehicles. England and Wales with only 8 million vehicles had a comparable figure of 9.25. So the death rate on the roads of this country, measured as per million vehicles licensed, is 50 per cent. more than that in America. The noble Lord speaks of age and experience. I quite agree that an apprenticeship is a good thing. But what goes for fifteen also goes for sixteen. Why not start your gradations of apprenticeship at the age of sixteen? The Minister has plenty of power to do this under the 1960 Road Traffic Act: he has all the power in the world. He can graduate the size of the motor cycle and its power. The noble Lord and the sponsors of this Bill say "Why we say moped is because we think the learner should have only a small 50 c.c. machine to start with." That would apply to everybody between the ages of fifteen and fifty. No provisional licence would ever be granted unless the driver were to start off with the lowest type of machine. Then we jump from 50 c.cs. to the scooter. The normal scooter can be anything from about 60 c.c. to 250 c.c.—the average is about 150 c.c. So we jump from that and go up to 200 c.c.

I think it is a step forward to say, as would be the case if Clause 1 were eliminated, that the first machine for anybody to ride should be one of 250 c.c. But if you are going to do this, and if the noble Lord's idea of gradations is speed of machine equal to the size of the machine, he has a grave problem, because in my view we shall get motor cycles of small engine capacity which are capable of high speeds; and on we shall go. In my view—this is quite a personal view, but I have had same experience of the motor industry—the moped is going out; and before the time arrives when the Amendment of the noble Lord, which he has threatened to move on the Committee stage, comes into operation I think it will be off the road. Then what does he do? I do not know whether I am entitled to ask the Minister a question—perhaps I had better ask it on Committee. He did not say, after listening to the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, whether or not the Amendment which the noble Lord said he was going to move on Committee stage commended itself to Her Majesty's Government. That is the very thing which Her Majesty's Government all through the passage of this Bill in another place refused to accept at any cost. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to answer that on the Committee stage.

Knowing the Minister a little, I feel that he is most unhappy about Clause 1, as I am. I think Clause 2 is possible, but I should like to give the Minister a free hand to be able to operate under the Road Traffic Act. Clause 2 of this Bill only repeats what is already in the Road Traffic Act, 1960. I do not mind the Bill going through, if the sponsors do not think it worth while to withdraw it, provided the Minister will give an undertaking that he will proceed with his thinking on the lines already laid down in the Road Traffic Act, and clearly set out, I think, in Section 204. He has all the powers there that Clause 2 gives him. But I sincerely hope that at this period in our time, when the Ministry of Transport are fighting an uphill battle to reduce accidents on the road, we shall never affront the public by agreeing to bring clown the age at which young boys and girls of school age can ride a mechanically propelled vehicle. The age was put up from fourteen to sixteen, and I hope that sixteen will remain the irreducible limit.

3.27 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps it might be well if I were to add a comment about this question of the moped. The question of accepting it on Committee is one that I suppose I ought really to leave to the Committee stage; but I think it must be indicative that, as I have already said, if the power is granted it is not intended to use it. I think that is quite indicative as to what would colour one's views about the acceptance of such an Amendment. I think that, for the sake of the Record, I must make it clear to the noble Lord that the insistence, as he put it, in another place on taking out the word "moped" was, as I understand it, due entirely to difficulties of drafting and definition, and not for any of the more powerful reasons that I thought the noble Lord rather insinuated—that it widens the power at our request. That was not so; it was because of drafting and definition, and no more.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, if I may speak again with the leave of the House, my understanding was that the Minister said that the Government did not want their hands tied to any specific definition—those are almost his exact words—because "moped" was a definition.

LORD REA

My Lords, might I put before the noble Lord something which is a little disturbing to some of us? He said that the powers, if granted, would not be used. Surely one's normal reactions to that would be that they should not be granted until they are to be used.

3.30 p.m.

LORD SOMERS

My Lords, admit that when I first saw this Bill I was inclined to describe it as a piece of stark, staring lunacy—or rather (since one must not use such terms nowadays) may I say that it displayed to me every symptom of severe mental illness. As I saw that it was standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Aberdare, I knew that it could not be severely abnormal, so I was forced to the conclusion that it must be psychopathic. But after having listened to him I realise that the case is not quite so severe as perhaps it might appear, though I feel that a good deal remains to be said about this Bill.

First, on Clause 1—this matter of age —experience on the road can be gained very well on an ordinary pedal cycle. I gained a lot of experience of traffic conditions by riding round London on a bicycle when I was a boy, and I think that prepared me for the driving of a car. One has to realise what are the two chief dangers with motor cycles. One is instability. Somebody once said that the motor cycle was chiefly dangerous because it had the speed of a car without its stability. And that is so. No motor cyclist wants to pull up to a relatively slow speed, because the lower his speed the less his stability. Therefore he wants to keep moving; and that applies just as much to a moped as it does to the largest of all motor cycles. The only point is that the moped cannot go quite so fast. On the other hand, it can go a great deal faster than an ordinary bicycle; and anybody who has seen riders of bicycles do the absolutely inane things which they do will realise that it is just as possible to do such things on a moped. When one has seen a cyclist swoop out of a side street, right into the middle of a main road in front of a motor car, forcing one to tread on the brakes to avoid hitting him, one realises that there are many young people who have very little sense of responsibility or knowledge of traffic conditions.

I believe that to lower the age limit below sixteen years would be a very dangerous experiment indeed. My noble friend Lord Chesham says that this provision is only giving powers, and that it is not intended that they shall be used. On the other hand, the powers are there, and we all know the great ability of the right honourable gentleman the Minister at finding new ideas. Next month this might be one of them. Who is to know? I do not think he should be given those powers. Personally I think we should keep the age as it is, at sixteen, but in relation to Clause 1, I would go further and say that until the age of eighteen no licence shall be granted for anything except a moped. Then, at eighteen, a rider should have to pass a further test before gaining a licence for a high-powered vehicle.

On Clause 2, I believe that the maximum of 250 c.c. is much too high, and that this provision also should be limited to mopeds, because a learner does not want the power which a 250 c.c. motor cycle will give, enabling him to think he can always squeeze in between two other vehicles when probably he cannot. While, therefore, I feel that this Bill is not quite so bad as I originally thought it, I consider that it goes much too far. My view is that we should be much more strict in seeing that young motor cyclists are taught on machines of very limited power, and that they have to pass a further test at the age of eighteen before qualifying for a high-powered machine.

Forward to