House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Mar 1993

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill) : I was somewhat alarmed to hear the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) explain his notion of further steps that he might consider taking to achieve a muckle out of today's mickle. I will be listening carefully to his future proposals for updating the stocks and bringing back caning, but he cannot rely on our support for any such moves.

The Opposition welcome and support the Bill--

Mr. Bill Walker : I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but does she wonder where the Scottish National party is today? Its Members pretend in Parliament to defend Scotland's interests, so why are not they here today to discuss this important Bill?

Column 1395

Mrs. Fyfe : The members of the SNP do a great deal more talking about supporting Scottish interests than acting for them.

Mr. Gallie : In all fairness--and, as everyone knows, I am very fair --an hon. Member from the Scottish National party voiced support for the Bill and was one of its listed supporters. I should not like the position to be misrepresented.

Mrs. Fyfe : I shall leave it to the members of the SNP, all three of them, to work out whether they should have been here for this debate.

We wholeheartedly support the Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who had the idea originally. Hon. Members will recall that when he raised the issue the Government claimed that they could not find time for it because of the time taken by the Bill on Maastricht. There followed such an uproar in Scotland that the Government were forced to change their mind. Instead of having the generosity to support the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton, I am sorry to say that they chose to bring in a Bill of their own and place it in the hands of the hon. Member for Ayr. (Mr. Gallie). Nevertheless, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's action.

The Bill matters a great deal to people in our communities. It arises from our people's anger and sorrow at the lives that have been thrown away. We are determined to get to grips with this evil in our society. No one should have to walk the streets of our cities in fear and it is appalling that young and otherwise law-abiding men start to think about carrying weapons in case someone, perhaps crazed by drink or drugs, attacks them for no reason. As the hon. Member for Ayr said, women feel especially vulnerable to attack and will greatly welcome this move to increase their safety on the streets and at home. Many people are vulnerable in many ways, especially the elderly and those who, because of racial or other prejudice, feel under particular threat.

An alarming number of the knives that were handed to Strathclyde police during its recent amnesty initiative and the knife produced in the Chamber a few weeks ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) are vicious instruments of death and no one could pretend otherwise. It would be foolish for society to permit the carrying of such weapons and to render our police unable to take appropriate action to secure the safety of the public. I do not think that Maryhill police are entirely likely to believe some Ned walking along the street with a collection of knives who says, "Actually, officer, I am on my way to cook up a cordon bleu meal." Such a story might be more readily believable if it were told by some other member of society.

Conservative Members are aware that although we support the Bill we retain some worries. We all know that a 3-inch blade can kill, as any incident and emergency department in our hospitals will testify. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) is not in his place. He may feel that the law as it stands is entirely satisfactory, but it is quite obvious to those of us who read in our daily newspapers about vicious attacks by knife-wielding thugs that the law is certainly not adequate to deal with such thugs and deter them from carrying blades. When such Neds can laugh at the law, it is time for society to do something about it.

Column 1396

1.28 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) : I am grateful for the opportunity to respond briefly to the debate. Once again, the Scottish National party is conspicuous by its absence. We should have a great deal more respect for SNP Members if they took the trouble to turn up for important debates, especially those on law and order on which there is strong feeling throughout Scotland.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) that the Bill contains a defence provision. Clause 1(4) states : "It shall be a defence for a person charged to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in the public place."

My hon. Friend's good intentions in this matter, as an able cook with great culinary skills, would be respected by all concerned, both south and north of the border. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) was correct. There have been no problems with the provisions relating to 3-inch blades so far. We shall monitor the effect of the provisions carefully and, if it is necessary to take further action, we shall take it, but so far there is no evidence that that is so.

My hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) are right in their reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). I have told my hon. and learned Friend that he is a brilliant man, but he is not always right. Nowhere is that more clear than in his assertions in relation to the Bill. The weakness in his argument, which he put only an hour ago, is that a knife is not necessarily classed as an offensive weapon under the provisions of section 1(4) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. For a knife to be classed as an offensive weapon, the prosecution must first prove that the person intended to use it to cause personal injury. If the prosecution cannot prove the intent to cause injury, a knife is not an offensive weapon, so the 1953 Act is not relevant and is insufficient to deal with the problem that is facing the nation. Under the Bill, it would not be necessary to prove intent. Actual possession would be sufficient and that would be a deterrent.

I agree that there is a growing tide of violence and that we need to take strong action to confront and deal with it. Violent crime is all too common today. It disfigures the lives not only of the victims and their families but of the wider community. People change their way of life in response to concern about violent crimes. They fortify their homes, they go out less frequently, they try not to travel alone and they avoid secluded places.

Law-abiding citizens should not have to live in such fear or to consider taking such precautions. They should be able to live their lives in safety and security. That is why we place the maintenance of law and order among our highest and most important objectives. It is why we will continue to ensure that the police and the courts have the powers and the resources to tackle crime, particularly violent crime, and to protect law-abiding citizens.

Since 1979 police numbers have increased by 1,100 officers. Over £500 million a year is spent on policing in Scotland. That represents a massive investment in law and order and reflects our full support for the police.

Despite that, it is sadly true that the number of homicides and the number of attempted murders have been rising. In Strathclyde the number of homicides rose

Column 1397

from 55 in 1991 to 92 in 1992, while the number of attempted murders rose from 126 to 201 over the same period.

Knives figured prominently in these assaults : they were used, for example, in over half of last year's homicide cases in Strathclyde. I commend Strathclyde police for their initiative in launching Operation Blade. I also welcome the support given to the "Bin a knife" campaign by STV and other sections of the Scottish media. That touches on what my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr said about the modern equivalent of the stocks. What television portrays is extremely important in that connection.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I apologise to the House for not having been here for all the debate, but I have been engaged in a series of interviews concerning the circumstances surrounding the death of four very young children in my constituency yesterday. Will the Minister confirm that new guidelines will be issued to both the police forces and the police college concerning the powers given to the police? What kind of publicity exercise will be initiated by this most welcome Bill?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : Guidelines and training of the police will be revised to take account of the new measures that we are introducing and the police will receive the fullest possible training. I hope very much that what we decide today will be taken full note of by the media in Scotland.

For our part, the Government have come to the view that the powers of the police and the courts need to be strengthened in relation to the prevention of indiscrim-inate knife carrying. We promised in the Conservative party manifesto to

"tackle the scourge of the indiscriminate use of knives to wound and kill on our streets."

We gave a commitment to

"create a new offence to make it unlawful for anyone to have in a public place any article with a blade or a sharp point."

Column 1398

There will, of course, be an exception for my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North wearing his skean dhu when he puts on highland dress.

The key feature of the Bill is to make it an offence to carry a knife or any other article with a blade or sharp point without good reason or lawful authority. There would be no need for the prosecution to prove, first, that the person involved intended to use the knife. It would simply need to prove that the person had the knife in a public place. It would then be for the person concerned to prove that he had lawful authority. The Bill will enable the police and the courts to deal with an enormous number of people who carry knives before those knives are used to damage or end innocent lives. I will say a few words about the penalties that are proposed. When the Bill was introduced, the maximum penalty available on summary conviction was specified as a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale--that is £1,000. However, when the Second Scottish Standing Committee scrutinised the Bill, it was clear that the Committee considered that, in the light of great and entirely legitimate public concern, the Bill should specify the same penalties as those contained in the 1953 Act-- in other words, to provide for a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both. The Government share the Committee's concern that the new offence and the consequent powers of the police should be available at the earliest opportunity. In all cases, the onus of proof will lie with the knife carrier.

Against the background of rising public concern about violent crime, I believe that the Bill will serve an invaluable purpose. It will prove to be a useful and effective extension to the range of powers that are available to the police and the courts. It meets the terms of the Conservative party's manifesto commitment. I am sure that it will help authorities to act in a preventive manner to reduce the number of assaults taking place on our streets. I welcome the Opposition's support for the Bill and I strongly commend the measure to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Column 1399

Newly Qualified Drivers Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

1.38 pm

Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It gives me great pleasure to move the Second Reading of a Bill which started life as a ten-minute Bill ; the vagaries of the parliamentary timetable have made it possible. I accept and understand that it would be unfair and unrealistic of me to expect the Bill to be given a Second Reading today. That is because we have only 40 minutes to debate an important and complicated issue. As several hon. Members wish to make known their views and to submit possible improvements, it would not be right to expect such a measure to be rushed through the House.

I appreciate that the Department of Transport is studying carefully ways of improving road safety. I suspect that the Bill may be a few months premature. None the less, I hope that it will open up a discussion that will help the Department in its deliberations. I must offer an apology to the House, especially to my hon. Friend the Minister. I regret that I shall have to leave the House early because I need to get to Chelmsford for an important engagement. As I am driving, I want to get out of London ahead of the rush hour traffic so as not to miss some appointments that have had to be postponed to enable me to be in the House this morning.

I have introduced the Bill against the backdrop of a relentless campaign by the Government and motoring organisations to make driving and our roads safer and to reduce deaths and injuries on our roads. Yesterday, the Department of Transport published figures showing that the number of road deaths had fallen, once again, to 4,273. Of course, that figure is far too high, but it is a remarkable improvement on the figure in the mid-1960s, when it was almost double that. During the past few years, there has been an inexorable reduction in the number of deaths, and that has been due to the Department's activities. The figure announced yesterday was the lowest since 1926, yet there are now 14 times more vehicles on our roads. I congratulate successive Ministers on their devotion to and success with campaigns--

Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West) : My hon. Friend is falling into the trap of having been in this place too long. Surely, the principal credit for the reduction in driving accidents should go to the motorists.

Mr. Burns : My hon. Friend is right in that it is up to motorists to be sensible and careful and to avoid accidents. However, it would be churlish to take away from Ministers and motoring organisations the credit for the way in which, with single-minded dedication, they have concentrated on the issue and sought not only to highlight the problems facing motorists as the drive, but to use campaigns to target specific areas such as drink- driving. Without that, I suspect that the figures announced yesterday would not have been so low. The purpose of my modest Bill is to contribute to making roads safer and drivers better equipped and more confident when driving. As I have said during previous debates on this matter, during the past 25 years there has been a revolution in motoring. Improved living standards have ensured far wider car ownership. Instead of the norm being one car per family, it is now more likely that two cars

Column 1400

or even more are owned by members of one family. Advances in technology, design and engine power have made cars far more sophisticated and powerful.

More than 29 million people have licences to drive cars. In 1988, 1.39 million people passed their driving tests, of whom 73 per cent. were aged between 17 and 25, 21 per cent. between 26 and 40 and 5 per cent. between 41 and 60. Surprisingly--indeed, staggeringly--0.3 per cent. were over 60. That intrigues me. As I shall explain later, newly qualified drivers do not necessarily mean young drivers. I am an Essex man, in that I have the honour to represent an Essex constituency. I am pleased to see here today my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, who is an Essex man, as are my hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). They may feel some affinity with a small article in the Daily Mail today, entitled "Essex girl, 83". The article said :

"A woman of 83 who sparked a major search when she vanished from her old people's flat"--

in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar--

" in nightclothes was found two hours later--in bed with an elderly man next door."

I accept that that has nothing to do with motoring, but if elderly Essex girls have such enterprise at the age of 83, who knows how many other enterprising Essex men and women will want to learn to drive and pass their driving tests at the age of 83? My Bill would apply to them no less than it would to youngsters of 17 to 25.

Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) : This matter is of deep concern to my constituents. The case that my hon. Friend mentioned is by no means exceptional behaviour for the people of Brentwood and Ongar. Indeed, it would be a matter for national comment if my constituents in their 80s were not to show that degree of vivacity and joy of life.

Mr. Burns : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is the epitome of a fun-loving Essex man.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North) : I congratulate my hon. Friend on the diligence with which he is presenting his Bill. Does he think that the lady in the aforementioned article--an Essex girl, as he rightly called her--could have been on the hormone replacement therapy recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)?

Mr. Burns : It seems to me that the Essex girl to whom I referred is in no need of hormone replacement therapy--but if problems were to arise, she will know doubt know to contact my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, who I am sure would be more than happy to give her plenty of advice, to ensure many more years of joyful fun. On a more serious note, the statistics that I gave before we were diverted by Essex girl made it abundantly clear that the majority of newly qualified drivers are aged between 17 and 25. The casualty figures for 1991 highlight another serious problem. In that year, drivers aged between 16 and 19 who were killed accounted for 4.6 per 100,000 of the population. The figure for those aged between 20 and 29 were almost unacceptably high, at 4.5 per 100,000. For age groups above that, the figure fell dramatically, to an average 2.2 per 100, 000.

Those statistics are reinforced by a recent study by the Transport Research Laboratory of the Department of

Column 1401

Transport on the attitudes, opinions and development of skills among novice drivers in the first two years after passing their test. It showed that 28 per cent. of respondents had been involved in at least one accident as a driver. Twenty-five per cent. of those had been driving for only 12 months, 27 per cent. for 18 months, and 35 per cent. for 24 months.

Thirty-three per cent. of those involved in an accident had been involved in an injury accident. From their own estimations, 34 per cent. of those drivers felt it likely that they would be at least partly to blame if they were to have an accident as a driver during the first 12 months of their driving careers.

The report also highlighted the fact that those who had been driving for two years had higher scores on confidence in decision making than those who had been driving for a shorter period. That group also reported more frequently failing to notice a pedestrian waiting at a crossing, failing to use their mirrors when they should, misjudging, trying to beat other drivers on a getaway from traffic lights or in other stationary situations and taking other action that they knew might be dangerous.

Interestingly, the report showed that the proportion of new drivers involved in an accident between 18 and 24 months after passing a test was greater than the proportion involved between 12 and 18 months after passing one. Those statistics prove that there is a serious problem in respect of newly qualified drivers and road safety. My Bill introduces measures to improve road safety for not only newly qualified drivers but other drivers and innocent pedestrians. The problem partly emanates from the fact that inexperienced drivers, as soon as they pass their test, are given the same privileges and rights as drivers who passed their tests more than 20 years ago and who have since gained experience and maturity. To my mind, that must be rectified.

My Bill aims at bringing greater safety and protection to newly qualified drivers and to others who share the roads with them. As I have said before, newly qualified drivers are not exclusively under the age of 25. They can be any age, through to the ages to which I referred earlier.

Clause 1(4) would make it law that a condition of granting a full licence would be that for two years after the passing of that test, the newly qualified driver would have to display a sign on his car noting that he was a newly qualified driver, in the same way as learner drivers have to display an L-plate before they pass their driving test. The type of display to be used would be left to the Secretary of State, but it is obvious that it should be something like "P" for provisional or, if one did not like that, perhaps "R" for restricted. We may quibble over the letter of the alphabet, but that would be the principle. Power would be given to the Secretary of State, who, after consultation, would come up with the right letter. My choice would be "P" for probationer.

P-plates for probationers would be a constant reminder to newly qualified drivers that they are newly qualified, that they do not know it all and that they do not have the experience of other drivers. It would also serve the useful function of drawing the attention of other drivers to the

Column 1402

fact that they are in the vicinity of a newly qualified driver. They could then be more considerate and take more care with their driving.

It is interesting to note that the Transport Research Laboratory report shows that more than half the respondents felt that to require newly qualified drivers to display a special plate to let others know that they were inexperienced would prevent a great many accidents. Some may say that such a proposal is unenforceable, I do not share that view. I suspect that when L-plates were introduced for learner drivers, many people said that the proposal was unenforceable. Experience since then seems to be that the system works well. Clause 2(1) would make it an offence for newly qualified drivers not to display their P-plate or their R-plate for the first two years after passing the driving test. Failure to do so would contravene the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The maximum penalty on conviction would be at level 3 on the standard scale, which is a maximum fine of up to £1,000--the same penalty as is currently imposed on those who are convicted of failing to display a L-plate if they are learner drivers.

Clause 1(5) would amend the Road Traffic Act 1988. Any newly qualified driver would, for the first 24 months after passing his or her test, have to drive a vehicle of no more than 1300 cc.

Mr. Pickles : Can I ask my hon. Friend for his advice on engine size? Mine is a rural constituency. My constituents use large vehicles, such as Land-Rovers and diesel cars. A sensible choice for a young person who had just passed his driving test would be a diesel car. The Bill would discourage the use of a sensible form of transport. There has been a great increase in car ownership, but many families have only one whose engine size is usually greater than 1300 cc. The Bill would mean that newly qualified drivers would be unable to drive the family car and obtain the experience that my hon. Friend wants them to obtain. Therefore, two years after passing their test, precisely the problem that my hon. Friend has identified would arise.

Mr. Burns : I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. With his usual perspicacity, he has anticipated my next point. I accept that this is the most controversial and potentially the most difficult part of the Bill. I hear what my hon. Friend says, but it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the purpose of the Bill is to improve road safety. One could find exceptions to, or plead a special case for, many of the measures that we pass. I believe that 1300 cc represents a respectable level of engine size for it not to become a major problem for the majority of families. Nevertheless, I accept that it may cause some problems for some families. One could argue that a one-car family might have only a series 7 BMW. It would be slightly odd to allow a 17-year-old to drive a series 7 BMW which belongs to his or her mother or father.

In theory, 17-year-olds could pass the driving test on their birthday and leave the test centre in a Porsche, a series 7 BMW or some other high- performance car. If they got into difficulties, they would not have the experience, maturity or capability to handle the car in the same way as a more experienced driver and avoid an accident--possibly a fatal accident.

Mr. Jenkin : Will my hon. Friend give way ?

Column 1403

Mr. Burns : No, I have little time. I accept that it is a difficult position. If the Bill were to reach the Committee stage, the matter would have to be examined carefully because one does not want to be ludicrous and over-extend the law. One must give serious thought to how newly qualified drivers can cope with road safety, which is a primary concern to everyone. New section 102A(2) specifies that those who are restricted to driving cars not exceeding 1300 cc would have that specified on their driving licence to help with the enforcement of that provision.

As hon. Members will have noticed from reading my Bill carefully, no penalties are specified in clause 2 for an offence that is committed. The reason for that is deliberate. To get it right, we must not make the law look an ass. We must produce a law that is enforceable and rational. At this stage, it would be preferable for a Committee to consider how we can get it right with the most realistic proposal and the most realistic penalties for those who contravene the law.

I accept that the Bill will not get on the statute book because it comes much too late in the parliamentary timetable. However, if it raises awareness of the problems facing newly qualified drivers, if it goes some way towards improving road safety in the United Kingdom and if it raises a serious debate about road safety and provokes discussion of ways to improve the safety of newly qualified drivers, others on our roads and innocent pedestrians, who may be seriously affected through injury or death, it will be worth while. As I said earlier, the Minister's Department is carrying out an ongoing study of ways further to improve road safety and the position of newly qualified drivers. All hon. Members must welcome the Department's work. We await publication of the Minister's White Paper and ideas which can be put out to consultation and, if necessary, result in legislation.

My Bill is a step in the right direction. It will bring more maturity and the opportunity for newly qualified drivers to gain experience on the roads. It will give more protection to other drivers and pedestrians and make people think more about how to make our roads safer for everyone. I commend the Bill to the House. 1.58 pm

Mr. Matthew Carrington (Fulham) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). It is a remarkable feat to get this Bill from a 10-minute rule Bill through to Second Reading. It is such a remarkable feat that it is hard to remember any other instances in which such a progression of events succeeded. My hon. Friend the Minister has achieved the same remarkable distinction, and I congratulate him on that.

The Bill is to be highly commended. It has the most remarkably worthwhile objective of improving road safety. That is an objective to which all Members of Parliament dedicate many hours of their working lives. Although fewer people are killed on the roads now, the roads in Britain are still far too unsafe and we need to do more to make them safer.

One of the great problems of road safety is undoubtedly the difficulty of other drivers in identifying motorists who are not fully in control of their motor car, so it is right that my hon. Friend has introduced a Bill which would enable an inexperienced driver to be readily identified by other

Column 1404

road users and avoided or given enough room. Other drivers would know not to anticipate that such drivers could cope in the difficult situations which can arise on the road.

Mr. Stern : My hon. Friend is rather more complimentary than I might be about the driving standards of drivers who come across a newly qualified or learner driver. Without wishing to poor-mouth my driving standards any more than my family would consider necessary, I am not sure that my reaction when confronted by a learner driver is to make things easier for him. My reaction, which I am told is not abnormal, is to get away as fast as possible, if necessary by accelerating as fast as possible past that driver. Does that necessarily contribute to road safety?

Mr. Carrington : I am sorry to hear that intervention from my hon. Friend. He must be unusual. But I know him well and I imagine that his comments are driven--if that is the right word--by modesty. I know him to be a kind and courteous man. For all that he might not want to get too close to less experienced drivers on the road, I am sure that he would get past in such a way as to ensure that their progression down the road was safe and easy for them so that they could learn. I am sure that my hon. Friend does himself less than justice. The Bill is an extension of the principle that has been observed since the 1930s that a learner driver should display an L-plate. My hon. Friend's Bill is a natural progression from that. I suggest that we could equally benefit from other classes of road users and drivers being required to display a sign showing what they were.

We have just been hearing about road hogs, not that I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-west (Mr. Stern) is a road hog. People who had been convicted of being road hogs or unsafe drivers should perhaps also display something on their car. People convicted of drink driving who had just got their licence back could also be required to display something on their cars. The principle could be extended to all sorts of groups.

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam) : Is my hon. Friend aware that the concept of a restricted driving licence or plate is not novel to the British Isles? Northern Ireland has them. An R-plate restricts a driver in speed and other matters. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will say how effective the scheme has been in the Province.

Mr. Carrington : My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. She is right. We have other plates in this country. For example, the diplomatic corps, who are a noble and trustworthy body of people, display a D in the middle of their number plate. Any other drivers using the road know full well to steer clear of a car with a diplomatic number plate because if they have an accident with it their rights as citizens of this country will be severely reduced. It is a well-established principle that certain classes of road user must identify their presence for the safety of other road users. One could wish to bring a number of other groups into such a category, to the point where most road users would have to display a sign on their car identifying themselves for the benefit of others. I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford that I have one or two worries about the Bill, some of which were mentioned by our hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). He

Column 1405

mentioned people who need cars with engines above a certain size. Cars that have a larger engine size may be inherently safer than those with small engines. One thinks, for instance, of the three -wheeled vehicles, which have small engines--

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : What has the hon. Gentleman got against Reliant Robins?

Mr. Carrington : I have nothing against them at all. A Reliant Robin requires skill and understanding to drive. It is the sort of car to which people should aspire once their driving skills are such that they can cope with the challenge. The Bill should provide that only experienced drivers should aspire to driving such cars. The other problem is that a foreigner-- I am thinking particularly of someone from the United States of America-- who intends to live here permanently and wishes to drive on the roads must pass an English driving test. He or she may be an extremely experienced motorist, but the moment they took their test they would have to display a "P" on their car and may have to buy a car with a smaller engine.

Mr. Burns : Does my hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of foreign drivers will not have experience of driving on the left hand side of the road? However experienced they are at handling a car, they may experience great difficulty in getting used to driving on the left hand side, with the associated problems of turning at crossroads and using roundabouts.

Mr. Carrington : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I look forward to discussing that in Committee and I hope that my hon. Friend's pessimism about the likelihood of the Bill going into Committee is ill-founded. We must debate such issues.

Does it take two years to learn to drive on the right or left hand side of the road? Should a British motorist be allowed to drive in France without displaying a sign on their car?

Mr. Burns : They have to display a "GB" sticker.

Mr. Carrington : Even before the Maastricht Bill, once we joined the European Community motorists no longer had to display those stickers.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris) : If I recall correctly, my hon. Friend's dear lady wife has been through precisely this experience.

Mr. Carrington : Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My wife is American and she went through that great trauma. As hon. Members can imagine, marrying me was a trauma, but it was made worse by the fact that, having been a driver for 20 years, she had to pass another driving test.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) : Does my hon. Friend agree that when our European neighbours come to this country, their cars have foreign plates which enable us to work out whether the driver is from Germany, from France or from Italy? We normally give such cars leeway simply because we see the foreign plates and because of the problems already mentioned.

Column 1406

Mr. Carrington : That is right. The Bill proposes nothing revolutionary. It is an extension of the fact that we identify cars by looking for signs such as whether the steering wheel is on the right or the left, whether the driver is smoking a pipe--or wearing a sharp suit, to pick up a point made in an earlier debate. We look for signs of potential problems.

I strongly recommend the Bill to the House, but I make one suggestion for improvement. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said that he felt that the right sign to have on the back or front of a car, where the L- plate now is, would be a P-plate. I can see the argument for having letters and we can discuss in Committee whether to have P, S or some other letter, such as D for danger.

I suggest that it would be more appropriate to have not a letter, but a picture which would make the whole process more flexible. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford will realise the merit of what I am saying. Someone who has been disqualified for drink-driving and who gets his licence back could, for the next three, five or 10 years, display the sign of a foaming tankard on the back of his car, which might be a considerable discouragement. Similarly, a driver who had had a road accident could display a sign of a crash which might also be a considerable discouragement. One could extend the principle to those whose cars had been clamped or to those who had not paid parking fines. The potential is enormous and I hope that my suggestion will be considered.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just put up taxes on petrol, a suitable picture for him would be of a hand in somebody else's pocket?

Mr. Carrington : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is making a serious point. His comment is extraordinary in that he is, I know, absolutely dedicated to preserving our environment and to stopping the misuse of carbon energy resources which is so dangerous in terms of global warming. Far from wishing the Chancellor to carry a sign which, I am sure from the description, would be for the purposes of vilification, the hon. Gentleman should wish the Chancellor to be identified as somebody who has contributed significantly to saving our planet. I am sure that my hon. Friends join me in that wish. I am straying a long way from the Bill and I am sure that you will call me to order before long, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall now make a point that will be vital for the whole process. At present, L-plates have to be tied on to cars with bits of string or stuck on with Sellotape which destroys the finish. Under the Bill, we should make it a condition that all motor cars are designed to have a card holder on the front and the back so that, as the motorist progresses, the appropriate sign can be inserted to demonstrate the stage of his or her development as a motorist. That is another matter to be discussed in Committee. I look forward to the debates in Committee, which will be important for road safety. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford and I wish the Bill well.

2.13 pm

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North) : It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), who developed a number of important arguments. My hon. Friend said that the Bill might require

Next Section

Home Page