|
Mr. Jamieson: If somebody already had nine points on their licence and they committed another offence that meant another three or more points on their licence, the provision would not be available to them. The provision covers what a court and not the police may impose.
Mr. Chope: So if somebody has six points on their licence and they incur another fixed penalty for speeding, they should, rather than accept the fixed penalty notice, elect to go court to access the provision. Is that what the Minister is saying; that one must go to court before one is eligible for the improvement to driving that will flow from those courses?
Mr. Jamieson: As the clause is written, that is the case.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 212
Clause 26
Driving tests
Mr. Fisher: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in clause 26, page 35, line 43, at end insert—
'(1A) In subsection (1) (tests of competence to drive), after the word ''requirement'', insert '', has received first aid training''.
(1B) After subsection (1A) insert—
''(1B) An applicant shall be considered to have received first aid training if on the date the application for the licence is made he has received the training prescribed by virtue of subsection (3) below,''.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 74, in clause 26, page 36, line 4, at end insert
(c) after paragraph (c) insert—
''(d) the nature of the first aid training for the purposes of this section and section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and the administrative arrangements for receiving such training,''.'.
Mr. Fisher: The amendments come rather neatly after that short debate on clause 24, where we explored how knowledge and understanding of behaviour on the road can make for a better driver. The amendments seek to add a further element to driving tests, which are the subject of clause 26. They would make knowledge and understanding of first aid a requirement for anybody applying for a driving licence. At present, there are some brief remarks about first aid in the highway code, on which every new driver is tested, but they are cursory. When I was tested—admittedly, rather a long time ago—nobody asked me about first aid. Although all new drivers must gain a working knowledge of the highway code in order to pass, I doubt whether many people are informed about first aid by driving instructors or tested on it when they take their test.
Knowledge of first aid is important. It would ensure that anyone on the road would be prepared for the consequences of an accident, which may be horrendous or, ultimately, fatal.
Mr. Knight: I have some sympathy with the amendments, but I would not wish the whole system to become over-bureaucratic and costly. What level of first aid training does the hon. Gentleman envisage, and what cost does he think would be added to the fee that a member of the public would have to pay to take their test?
Mr. Fisher: Those perfectly reasonable questions flush out a confession from me that the amendments are intended to probe the idea of such a requirement being added to the test. If they found sympathy with the Minister, more work would have to be done on the rigour of the test and therefore all the consequential items, such as cost. However, the Government have not accepted that we need more than what is in the code at present.
Much rests on our ability to deal with an accident. Many of us drive to our constituencies on motorways. I hope that none of us are involved in an accident or called to the scene of one. Most accidents that result in
Column Number: 213
fatalities involve blocking of the air supply, which can kill within four minutes. That is well inside the time that it takes the emergency services to get to most motorway accidents.
The emergency services are wonderful. One of the busiest parts of a large motorway, the M6, goes straight past my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. The North Staffordshire hospital and the Stafford General hospital receive many—too many—trauma cases from the M6.
Anything that we as drivers can do to assist in such traumatic events must surely be seen as pro-social. I ask members of the Committee whether, as experienced drivers who do literally thousands of miles every year, they are absolutely confident, having read the highway code, about how to behave to minimise loss of life or traumatic stress if they were at the scene of an accident.
After more than 40 years of driving, I certainly do not feel confident; I would be nonplussed. I hope that I would behave calmly and sensibly in such a crisis, but I know that I would behave inexpertly. Tabling the amendment has made me rather ashamed of the fact that I would not be of great help to anyone involved in such accidents. I ought to be; I ought to go on a course and improve my ability. Whether I am too old a dog to learn such tricks, I do not know.
Thinking about the amendment has made me realise that I am not really up to it, and I ask Committee members whether they are confident that they would know what to do in the event of an accident. If the answer to that question is no, I hope that the Minister will consider the matter seriously. She may not accept these probing amendments, but I hope that she will return on Report with something drafted by her officials. The matter is very important, and it would be a small, helpful strengthening of the driving licence if it incorporated a more rigorous test of first aid skills.
10.45 am
Mr. Wilshire: My starting point is the same in principle. I want to agree with the hon. Gentleman because his points are absolutely right. However, I am not sure on two counts whether the amendment is the right way to deal with the matter. I speak as someone who for 11 years of my life was greatly involved in a large scout group that seriously and regularly dealt with first aid matters. That was quite a few years ago now but it is still relevant. My experience gives me insight into why I have some caution about what the hon. Gentleman says.
I am concerned that we are, rightly, identifying a general responsibility that we all have, irrespective of whether we are drivers or not. The question could be applied all over the place, and we need to be a little careful in taking something technical like a driving test and bolting some general responsibilities of society on to it. One might say that people ought to know something about first aid if they drive, but all of us, if
Column Number: 214
we were given time, could come up with a list of other things that it would be sensible to bolt on as a general responsibility.
Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but would he accept that there is already a relevant paragraph in the driving licence? All the amendments would do is strengthen that and make it slightly more rigorous.
Mr. Wilshire: I understand that. That is why I started out wanting to support the hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that I shall end up doing so. One of the reasons for that is that the responsibility is a general one, and I am not sure that we should specify that drivers should know about it. That rather implies that other people need not do so.
My main concern, however, comes in response to the hon. Gentleman's question of whether we would know what to do. He would see it as a justification for supporting the amendment if we did not. All those years ago I learned two things; they may not be what the hon. Gentleman would expect but I still think that they are still more important than anything else if we go down that route. What I learned is more important than the immediate response of stopping, leaping out of our cars and doing what we can to help, which is what we would instinctively all want to do.
The hon. Gentleman says that we should be more skilled at doing that, which does tend to put in people's mind that the first thing they should do is stop, get out and try to help. I am not sure that I would want to encourage that, because the first thing that was drummed into my mind was that the first thing one needs to do is to ensure there is not another accident. That sometimes means that people should not go to the aid of the person that they think needs help. If people attend to that person and allow further accidents to occur behind them, what begins as a feeling that one ought to help one person ends with six, seven or however many needing help, and a multiple pile-up on the motorway. That is a classic example of how, by attending to a person who is already injured, someone can easily take their mind off what is even more important than an accident involving one person: the possibility of a load more.
Mr. Kidney: Having undertaken a little first aid training in the past, I can happily tell the hon. Gentleman that the first thing people learn is to assess the situation and to make sure the scene is safe.
Mr. Wilshire: I do not dispute that for one moment, but that is the first issue in explaining why I have a degree of nervousness about this amendment.
The other issue about which one has to be careful when telling people that they need to know something about first aid is the phrase, ''Do you have some sticking plasters or Savlon in the car?'' I am not advertising; it just happens to be what I tend to use. All these items come to mind as ''first aid''. One of the other things that is drummed into those of us who get involved in these sorts of situations—I gather, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the first thing one is told is to be careful—is that there is a real risk that people
Column Number: 215
with a relatively minor amount of first aid knowledge that probably could be acquired under his proposal will leap out to help somebody who is seriously injured in a car crash and will make matters worse; the broken back syndrome or clearing airways, for example. In theory, they are easy, but it is possible to kill someone in the process. In this case, ensuring that there is not another accident while waiting for 10 minutes can often be more helpful.
I understand and have huge sympathy with the point; yes, all of us, whether we are drivers or not, should have a greater knowledge of what to do. However, with the amount of add-on that I would expect, we could not only make it possible for further accidents to happen, but add to the number of fatalities when we do not intend to do so. I do not mean that unkindly and I am not trying to rubbish what the hon. Gentleman says, but as I listen and think, I am not sure that this is the way to go about something that in theory we all ought to be more concerned about.
| 
