I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

First, I should apologise to the House for moving a new Clause the object of which will be to give a new power to make regulations, but I would point cut, in mitigation, that that power is not a very substantial one. The category of persons affected by this Clause are those who come under the terms of Clause 2 (1. e,) those who hold provisional licences, and are convicted of being in charge of a motorcar when either drunk, or under the influence of drugs. As the Bill now stands, these people are to receive permanent driving licences, subject to an ordinary driving test during the course of which, we were told by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, they will be examined on the Highway Code and will have paragraph 3 of that Code, which deals with this subject, impressed upon their minds. We were also assured by the Parliamentary Secretary that he thought this would have a very salutary effect on the consciences of those concerned, although some of us were a little sceptical on that point.

It seems very pointless indeed to test people when they are sober who have been found guilty of being drunk in charge of a car and the effect of the Clause is to add an additional test, if the Minister so desires, namely, a medical test. It seems to me that the best person to tell whether a man is again likely to be drunk in charge of a motor car is not an ordinary driving examiner when the man is sober, but a doctor. The Parliamentary Secretary himself admitted that there was, unfortunately, a group of people who might again be liable to be convicted of the same offence, and it is pretty clear that the ordinary driving test will not disclose this fact. Therefore, it seemed to us that there were good grounds for providing a different kind of test, one which was likely to find them out, and those are the grounds on which I am moving this new Clause for the consideration of the House.

My hon. Friends and I were at great pains in Committee to point out that our object in drawing attention to the present position was to make it less likely that people who were again liable to be drunk in charge of a motor car, should have their licences confirmed. Our intention was not in any way to favour those who had been convicted of this particular offence, as against others convicted of offences such as careless driving. On at least two, if not more, occasions during the Committee stage, as will be seen from the OFFICIAL REPORT, we advocated this medical test, and invited the Minister to draft a Clause of this kind. As he has not done so, we thought it best, in order to make our position quite clear, to put down such a Clause. We thought it the more necessary to do so because we had been the subject of an attack in a daily newspaper, which is a great supporter of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and which gave, a completely distorted picture of our views and led its readers to suppose that the claims of persons convicted of being drunk in charge of a motor car, would not go unheeded as far as certain persons on these benches were concerned. That, in my submission, was a complete distortion of the facts, as anyone who had read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in that Committee would know. The newspaper went on to say, in a somewhat more benevolent spirit, that "a man is entitled to drink, whether to enhance his happiness or to drown his sorrows." I have no doubt that, under a Socialist Government, the reason why he would drink would be to drown his sorrows and not to enhance his happiness.

However, hon. Members opposite now have a splendid chance to prove that they are indeed the persons that they are held up to be by this newspaper, the "Daily Herald." They have an excellent opportunity to show how concerned they are that the public should be protected against persons who are again likely to be convicted of driving a motor car whilst under the influence of drink, which can, and undoubtedly often does, cause the most serious accidents, to the detriment of all road users. In the Committee, this medical test was advocated by at least one hon. Member opposite. I commend it to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope that he will accept it or, at least, give us some more convincing argument that he is really considering this particular class of person, and not merely, for the sake of convenience, lumping them with persons guilty of other classes of road offences, such as careless and dangerous driving.