House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 Apr 1993

Mr. Heald : I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on introducing the Bill, which builds on the achievements of MAVIS, Crowthorne and the motability scheme, which have given many people a degree of independence that they had not enjoyed hitherto. A young constituent of mine returned from the Falklands conflict seriously injured. He was extremely depressed and anxious and had lost much of the morale and fortitude for which we had known him. Now that he has been to Crowthorne, used the MAVIS scheme and got his motor car through motability, he is a changed man. He is living an independent life and is much more like the person we all knew before he went to the Falklands. I therefore pay tribute to MAVIS and all its achievements.

Having achieved the degree of independence that a motor car can bring and having had the opportunity to learn to combat their disability, the many people like my constituent would be much better able to teach other disabled people to drive effectively than a fully able-bodied person who did not understand some of the difficulties.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : My hon. Friend has reminded me of a point that I intended to make. Someone qualified to be a driving instructor using only an automatic transmission car will not be confined to teaching only disabled people ; he will be able to teach anyone who wants

Column 630

to qualify to drive by himself in an automatic transmission car. Rather than providing for specialist driving instructors, we seek to remove a barrier. I am sorry that I did not make that plain.

Mr. Heald : I have read the Bill and I entirely accept that point. It seems to me, however, that someone who has striven to overcome his disabilities can shed a new light on the business of instructing someone with similar disabilities in how to drive a vehicle. That important aspect commends the Bill to the House.

I must say that I was surprised to be described as a radical Turk. I have always been a Conservative, but I do not think that I have ever been radical. In considering a measure that deals with the attainment of a vocational qualification, it is important to examine the experience in other professions. I am ashamed to admit that I am a barrister because I know that we are not popular in this place. Usually, someone seeking to attain a professional qualification has no appeal. If he fails the examination, he is usually given the opportunity to have another go, but he cannot usually have the assessment reviewed by the Secretary of State in an attempt to second-guess the original assessor or examiner. If we are considering a vocational qualification, it is far better to grant the right to retake the examination or assessment than to review it.

Mr. Luff : The parallel with a professional qualification is a little forced. The new clause refers to the emergency control certificate which is an additional requirement over and above the vocational examination which a disabled person will have to take and for which no new appeal procedure is suggested.

10.30 am

Mr. Heald : I believe that we are talking about a vocational qualification. It is a qualification to allow someone to teach driving. It is not like a criminal case or an assessment for benefit. It is a vocational qualification. I believe that it would be wrong to have a system with an overlying appeal process which would create bureaucracy in the Department of Transport.

One of the great strengths of the Bill, which I agree should be passed and is achievable, can be found in the explanatory memorandum which, in relation to the

"Financial and public service manpower effects of the Bill" states :

"The Bill will have no direct financial effects.

The Bill will have no effects on public service manpower."

Mr. Peter Bottomley : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is coming close to suggesting that my new clause is out of order. I believe that my hon. Friend is almost making a direct criticism of the Chair. If my new clause affects public service manpower, would it have been called for debate? I am very worried about this.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : The hon. Gentleman is aware that that is a matter for the Chair to decide.

Mr. Heald : I do not wish to stray out of order on this point and I know that I will not be allowed to do so.

It is important to consider that, although the new clause may not be out of order, a layer of bureaucracy would be created and inevitably that would mean that staff at the Department of Transport would have to deal with the appeals.

Column 631

We do not know how many people would take the test. I believe that there are 100,000 disabled drivers, very few of whom may want to take the assessment. However, perhaps a far larger number than we imagine might decide to take it. When we consider that it is a logical career for a disabled person who has acquired the skills to want to pass on that knowledge, perhaps a substantial number of people might want to grasp this opportunity. If that is the case, many people in the Department of Transport will have to deal with the appeals. If that is the case, we should consider whether that is an example of creating bureaucracy and red tape and the kind of things which we as Conservatives--even if we are not radical--do not normally support. I argue that it is unnecessary to create this new layer of bureaucracy because, with a national vocational qualification, we would not expect this kind of appeal.

We can tackle the issue with amendment No. 22. That amendment would reduce the period between which tests can occur to three months rather than six months. I would support that because if the three-month period were in operation, people--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying into another debate.

Mr. Heald : I will not go down that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that it is possible to take the test again relatively speedily, the position would be entirely different if we approved the new clause. Twenty- eight days' notice of appeal would probably mean that a decision would not be made for at least three months and possibly six months anyway. It might be better for an aggrieved person to take the test again and not go through the appeals procedure. Even on the grounds of efficiency and getting the job done for the aggrieved person, I believe that it is likely to be better to opt for a shorter period between tests.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), whose championing of the causes of the disabled is unrivalled in this place. I am absolutely delighted that he came so high in the ballot and that he has introduced this Bill.

It is remarkable that we have continued for so long with this inequality in our system. The more that I consider the problems of disabled people, the more inequalities I find. Although we have come a long way, I believe that we still have a long way to go. The fact that the Bill has all-party support is delightfully refreshing. Although hon. Members are thin on the ground in the Chamber today, the way in which the Bill was introduced and its passage through Committee are an endorsement of the will of the House and of the political will of all parties to support it.

Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) : In view of what the hon. Lady has just said about all-party support for this Bill, will she join us in support of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was talked out on an earlier occasion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) must not go down that road.

Column 632

Mrs. Gillan : Thank you for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must admit that I have sympathy for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). She has championed her cause almost

single-handedly on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Luff : Some Conservative Members believe that the Road Traffic (Driving Instruction by Disabled Persons) Bill is a better example of the kind of targeted employment legislation which can bring real benefit to disabled people than the more omnibus approach suggested in the Bill referred to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley).

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We are discussing the Road Traffic (Driving Instruction by Disabled Persons) Bill and new clause 4 and no other Bills.

Mrs. Gillan : I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff). The Bill reflects a practical way of approaching some of the problems of disabled people.

I contrast this Bill and the way in which the House can be seen to be behaving at its best with some of the scenes over the past few weeks and months, when the House has not sent the right message to the rest of the country and when it was seen to be behaving at its worst. It is a pleasure to be here on an occasion on which the House is perceived to be performing its duty towards the people of the country.

It is the role of the House to look after the small sections of the population that are often left behind and forgotten when we are introducing legislation. We must never forget that we should examine our citizens and society closely and strive continually to help the small groups of people who are perhaps disadvantaged unfairly or left out when we are legislating for the country as a whole. In a ten-minute Bill next week, I will try to redress the balance for a small section of our population--parents who adopt children--who I believe to be disadvantaged.

The Bill will be welcomed throughout the country and when my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that the time scale will become apparent and that we will know when we can expect the first disabled driving instructor to be operating in this country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Lady is making a Third Reading speech. She should return to the new clause.

Mrs. Gillan : I will defer to your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. New clause 4 was ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). I am pleased that he has introduced the possibility of an appeal. After all, in the assessment of a disabled person seeking to practise as a driving instructor, an important medical element may demand a second opinion. It will be subjective. Therefore, for some elements of the assessment, two points of view will need to be brought to bear. During the passage of the Bill--perhaps when it is considered in the other place--I hope that we can ensure that disabled people who apply for the emergency control certificate will not be disadvantaged in any way compared with able -bodied drivers who are assessed during their period as driving instructors. If able-bodied driving instructors do not come up to standard, there is a period in which they can still instruct and then be reviewed. I agree with my hon. Friend

Column 633

the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) that perhaps 28 days is not long enough. When we introduce a level of bureaucracy, which must accompany this--

Mr. Duncan : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on the question of bureaucracy, which was mentioned a moment ago. It may be fallacious to suggest that an enormous layer of bureaucracy would be created by this measure. If there are, say, 200,000 registered disabled people in the United Kingdom, perhaps at the outset a maximum of something like 1,000 may wish to register under the scheme.

Once the system is up and running, in the years ahead, fewer people may apply for the emergency control certificate and we will find that only 20 or 30 a year need to invoke the appeals procedure. Even the least efficient of civil servants--increasingly, our civil servants are becoming more efficient--will be able to sustain the burden of a mere 20 or 30 appeals without great cost to the Exchequer--if, indeed, any at all.

Mrs. Gillan : I imagine that the number of appeals will be fairly small. When the Bill goes through the other place, I hope that we will carefully ensure that we do not disadvantage disabled people and create another barrier for them over that of able-bodied driving instructors.

I said earlier that the Bill will be welcomed throughout the country. It will certainly be welcomed by my disabled residents in Chesham and Amersham. We are opening new horizons for disabled people. I wish the Bill a speedy passage on to the statute book. 10.45 am

Sir John Hannam (Exeter) : This has been an excellent debate on the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and other hon. Friends. It has given us an opportunity to examine in some detail the emergency control certificate assessment system. A number of interesting points have been raised which I hope to deal with in my speech.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham for his remarks about the importance of the Mobility Advice and Vehicle Information Service-- MAVIS, as my favourite girlfriend is now known--advice centre because it plays a crucial role in advising disabled drivers all over the country on what sort of vehicles they need and the necessary adaptations, generally giving them confidence to embark on driving their own vehicles and getting their own mobility.

I shall start with a few words about the way in which the assessment is carried out, because it will help in my later arguments for resisting the new clause. The assessment will take place at MAVIS using one of a fleet of cars. An extensive fleet of cars is available--I have photographs of the range provided and the different adaptations. The assessment can also be carried out in a vehicle supplied by the person undertaking it. The choice of vehicle used will depend entirely on how the specific vehicle has been adapted. The assessment will be subjective and will assess a person's performance. The driving adviser will act as the pupil. When I went to Crowthorne I tried out several vehicles and went through the test procedure. I behaved as a disabled driver with the instructor--the assessor --sitting

Column 634

beside me. We then changed round and, pretending to be disabled and using the adaptations, he tested my ability to effect an emergency stop. Under the system, the driving adviser will act as the pupil and the disabled driver undertaking the assessment will take the role of the driving instructor. It will be a practical assessment in a moving vehicle around the test area at Crowthorne. The potential driving instructor will be expected to take control of the steering and braking at any time--in other words, in any emergency--at various stages of the test course.

Mr. John Whittingdale (Colchester, South and Maldon) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but the annunciator says that my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt) is speaking at present, rather than my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). I know that many hon. Members may wish to come and hear my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter. I apologise : the annunciator has now been changZ Sir John Hannam : It is nice to have the right name on the annunciator. It always takes a little time for the right name to appear.

Potential driving instructors will be expected to demonstrate control of braking and acceleration for the purpose of tuition. They must show that they will be able to carry out all those measures when giving instruction, if they become approved driving instructors. They will need to show that they can correct minor errors and take positive action in a simulated emergency. In the demonstration of their actions, they must show the highest regard to and protection of life and property. The assessment will not look simply at the ability of potential driving instructors to give driving tuition : it will establish that there is a potential for that tuition to be carried out safely.

The main concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North- East (Mr. Thurnham) and other hon. Friends is that, if an emergency control certificate is refused by the assessor, the disabled driver should be given full reasons for that refusal. I am happy to reassure the House that subsection (9) in new section 133A on page 7 of the Bill clearly requires the assessor to give those reasons for refusing permission.

I appreciate the initial attraction behind the new clause, which is that the Bill should provide disabled persons who are aggrieved by a decision of the assessor with a statutory right of appeal against that decision. That point was considered carefully in the drafting of the Bill, and I hope that I can persuade my hon. Friend for Eltham, for whom I have the the highest regard through his work as a previous transport Minister, that the new clause is not necessary. It must be right that disabled registered driving instructors and candidate instructors should be treated no differently from their non-disabled counterparts when it comes to rights of appeal. The existing legislation governing the registration of able-bodied driving instructors--the Road Traffic Act 1988--does not provide a statutory right of appeal against the decision of those responsible for assessing the ability of the instructors or the candidate instructors to give instruction. To take it a

Column 635

step further, nor does the existing legislation grant those who fail their ordinary driving test a statutory right of appeal against the decision of the driving examiner.

My Bill seeks to do no more than amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 to put disabled people on a par with those who are not disabled when it comes to registration as approved driving instructors--it is removing a barrier and a discrimination. It does not seek to confer on disabled people statutory rights in respect of giving paid driving instruction which are not available to able-bodied people. We are not creating positive discrimination--moving across the line and, therefore, favouring disabled people. We are simply establishing a level playing field.

There are good reasons why the existing legislation does not grant statutory rights of appeal against the decisions of driving examiners in the assessment of candidate and registered driving instructors. Those reasons also hold good for decisions of assessors of emergency control.

The first reason is that the circumstances giving rise to the decision of the assessor takes place in a moving vehicle. Actions and decisions are made as the person drives along undertaking the various checks and tests. Those circumstances can never be replicated to enable the person or body charged with determining an appeal to arrive at an informed and proper judgment of the decision of the assessor. The problem of replication makes it difficult, if not impossible, to see how an independent third party could arbitrate usefully on the assessment of emergency control. Assessment takes place in a moment under test circumstances.

Four decisions of the assessor of emergency control could aggrieve a potential driving instructor : first, a refusal to grant the control certificate ; secondly, a decision to revoke an existing emergency control certificate ; thirdly, the period specified in the certificate after the end of which the disabled person should undergo a further assessment--that point has been referred to in the debate ; and fourthly, the required modifications to the vehicle, which may also be specified in the certificate.

The first two of those decisions--refusal to grant a certificate and revocation--will turn on the disabled person's ability to satisfy the assessor that he or she can safely exercise control of the vehicle, whether or not it has been modified, in a simulated emergency while giving instruction. Candidates must exercise control not merely in a driving test. They must convince the assessor that they can carry out an emergency control stop while giving instruction.

So any possible appeal against the assessor will be based on the disabled person's opinion that he or she exercised the necessary emergency control, against the assessor's judgment that the person did not exercise that control. Consequently, if the Bill provided a statutory right of appeal against the decision of the assessor, the arbitrator or appeals tribunal appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport would be tasked with deciding whether the assessor's judgment was right.

The independent third party would be expected to second-guess the assessor in respect of an assessment which could not be replicated and which was carried out when the third party was not present. So the arguments brought before any third party responsible for determining such an appeal would be reduced to the assessor maintaining that the disabled person did not exercise the required emergency control, and the disabled person claiming that he or she did.

Column 636

The House can imagine--my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham pointed this out--the fruitless appeals which would be occasioned by statutory rights of appeal which turned on the professional assessor's judgment. Let us take the analogy of the ordinary driving test, which I suppose that most Members have taken and passed, if not at the first attempt. A driving examiner who failed a candidate might say, "You failed to make proper use of your mirrors and to make a safe controlled emergency stop." The candidate might say, "That was not the case." The examiner would say, "Oh, yes it was." The candidate would say, "No it was not. Furthermore, I shall exercise my statutory right of appeal against your decision to fail me."

Obviously such a dialogue would prove unsatisfactory and create a ridiculous scenario. It would not get the parties in dispute any further. The driving test that gave rise to the appeal could not be replicated. I am sure that the House would not want to create such a scenario in the judgment of emergency control ability. That is the unsatisfactory position which would almost certainly be created.

Mr. Heald : Does my hon. Friend agree that just about the only way of creating a successful appeal process would be something similar to the way in which medical appeals for benefits are treated? A medical appeal tribunal makes its assessment of the person's disability. With an emergency control assessment, an appeal panel would have to undertake a reassessment. Given that that is the only practical way, is it not just as good to allow the disabled person who wishes to become an instructor to take the assessment again, as the Act provides?

Sir John Hannam : My hon. Friend is correct. We have provided for the failed potential driving instructor to come back within a reasonably short period if he or she feels, as we often feel in similar circumstances, that the judgment was wrong. We must create in the Bill fair treatment for potential disabled driving instructors, but, at the same time, ensure that we do not land ourselves with a litigious process which would not work in the long term.

Disabled candidates may rehearse the same arguments over and over again. Many of us, in dealing with our constituents in other matters such as disability allowances, come up against people who rehearse the same case over the years. They feel aggrieved that they do not receive mobility allowance or whatever allowance they wish to claim. We perhaps can see clearly from the first instance that their entitlement is not necessarily established.

If the Bill granted a statutory right of appeal against the decision of the assessor of emergency control, it would be difficult for my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic to resist pressure to amend the existing legislation to grant the same rights to all people to appeal against the decisions of driving examiners in connection with the ordinary driving test, vocational driving tests, the approved driving instructor practical tests and the periodic check tests of registered instructors. I submit that there would be no end to the differences of opinion between examiner and candidate. I am sure that, in discussing the matter today, the House does not wish to question the objectivity and professionalism of the Department of Transport driving examiners. Nor do we wish to question the integrity and objectivity of the driving advisers who would conduct the

Column 637

emergency control assessment. Anyone who goes to the centre will soon come to admire their integrity, expertise and professionalism and the humanitarian approach that they take to the job that they do.

To introduce the concept of a statutory right of appeal against what must be matters of professional opinion could lead to a proliferation of appeals tribunals or something similar. Given that the assessment could not be replicated, the tribunal could do no more than require that the test be taken again. That is what we have provided for in the Bill.

There is nothing in existing legislation or in the Bill to prevent a person from taking a test or assessment again. A statutory appeals procedure is not necessary to provide that opportunity. The Bill enables a disabled person to apply for reassessment, although six months must elapse before a further assessment may be undergone at that person's request.

The six-month period is intended to prevent time wasters who have no realistic chance of satisfying the emergency control assessor. Without the six-month minimum period between assessments, such time wasters might be encouraged to seek more frequent assessments, especially because there will be no fee for that assessment. The most that the third party could conceivably do when faced with what amounted to differing opinions on emergency control ability would be to order a reassessment. We can agree that the third party could not reach a judgment and would have to order a reassessment. If the arbitrator ordered a reassessment, unless the assessor of emergency control had acted perversely--that is an unlikely event--the outcome of the reassessment ordered by the third party arbiter would almost certainly be the same as that which occasioned the appeal in the first instance.

I submit that the assessment of emergency control is essentially black and white. The disabled person will either be able or unable to exercise the necessary control. That will be perfectly obvious during the test. In most, if not all, cases, I am sure that the disabled person would be in no doubt about whether emergency control was demonstrated. If the car finishes up in the trees, he has not done the job and knows that he has not passed. It is as simple as that. So I am sure that the House agrees that disabled people are not being disadvantaged by the Bill's not containing a statutory right of appeal against the decision of an assessor to refuse to grant an emergency control certificate or in cases where the assessor revokes an existing certificate.

In practice, there will be few cases of doubt. The assessment that was the subject of appeal could not be replicated. The best that a statutory right of appeal could provide would be the power of a third party to order a reassessment. The Bill already provides for a disabled person to apply for reassessment and that person would already have received in the refusal full reasons why he had been refused his emergency control certificate.

We would not want to do anything under the Bill that offered the prospect of statutory rights of appeal against decisions of professional Government officials in respect of driving tests or in the execution of the practical aspects of the approved driving instructor examination. The sensible thing is for the aggrieved candidate to take the test again.

Column 638

That is what many hon. Members will have had to do before tearing up their L plates. That is what underlies the lack of a statutory right of appeal in the existing legislation governing driving tests and the driving instructor examination. That is why I omitted from the Bill a statutory right of appeal against the judgment of the assessor.

11 am

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) spoke about the medical aspects of the system. A disabled person might want to appeal against the period specified by the assessor in the emergency control certificate after the end of which that person should undergo a further assessment, which is set when there are doubts about a deterioration in that person's condition. Secondly, an appeal could be lodged on the modifications to the vehicle that the assessor considers necessary for the purpose of giving driving instruction. Essentially, those decisions are based on medical questions and the assessor's decision will be informed by the extent and nature of a person's physical disability.

In most cases, it is anticipated that disabled people applying for an emergency control assessment will have a stable condition, for example, paraplegia, where there is little or no likelihood of that condition worsening. In those cases, the assessor is unlikely to specify a period after which a further assessment should be undergone. Any worsening in such a person's physical condition, such as to render that person incapable of giving safe driving instruction, would, in those circumstances, be picked up as part of the periodic check testing that all registered driving instructors are required to undergo, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham pointed out. The Bill places a duty on the disabled person, like his non-disabled counterpart, to notify the registrar of approved driving examiners if his physical condition worsens, unless that worsening is expected to be temporary. That duty is laid down under statute. Any area of dispute about the period after which the assessor specifies that a further assessment should be undergone will arise in those cases where a person is suffering from a progressive illness, which leads to a reduction of physical capacity over time. It is possible to envisage granting a statutory right of appeal to a suitably qualified third party, but disputes about medical conditions are time consuming and costly to resolve. In practice, I do not belieive that granting a right of appeal to some sort of independent medical tribunal is necessary.

The assesor will be well versed in the nature of various physical disabilities, whether stable or otherwise, and will have access to medical advice. That advice can come from the candidate's doctor and the Department of Transport's medical adviser. It is difficult to believe that the introduction of a statutory and costly right of appeal to third-party medical opinion would add anything constructive to that informative process.

If the disabled person considers that the assessor has reached the wrong conclusion about the nature or the pace of the progressive disability, it is open to him to produce medical advice to counter the assessor's conclusion. The assessor can then refer that advice to the Department of Transport's medical adviser. There will be a few cases where there is a marked difference of opinion, but I believe that the matter will be best resolved between the disabled

Column 639

person, advised by his medical practitioner, and the Department's medical adviser, without a statutory right of appeal to a medical third party. I hope that the House will agree with me that a statutory right of appeal against decisions of the assessor, for the purposes of the emergency control certificate, relating to the rate of progressive illness would be inappropriate and unnecessary. That leaves the last possible area of appeals--those made against the decision of the assessor on the modifications to the vehicle, as specified in the emergency control certificate. This is a specialist area and it should be left to the professionalism and expertise of the driving adviser of MAVIS who will conduct the assessment. In practice, I am sure that a disabled person who is determined to become a registered driving instructor would not reasonably object if the assessor specified a modification that the disabled person was not persuaded was wholly ncessary.

Although I do not support the concept of statutory rights of appeal, disabled registered driving instructors will enjoy the same statutory rights of appeal against decisions of the registrar. The existing legislation provides that statutory right against decisions such as the removal of a person's name from the register. Those appeals are considered by appeals tribunals which make

recommendations to the Secretary of State for Transport. My Bill, which deals solely with the emergency control certificate, does not change that process.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, with his wide knowledge as a former transport Minister, will accept my arguments and will feel able to withdraw his new clause. I assure the House that full consideration will be given in another place to the other points raised during the debate. I would therefore ask the House not to accept the new clause.

Ms Walley : I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on his Bill, which has been subject ot considerable consultation throughout all its stages.

The hon. Gentleman has given us a thorough and comprehensive resume of the existing safeguards in the Bill. The Opposition do not want to be classified as time wasters, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, so I shall merely say that we have every confidence in the reply that the hon. Gentleman gave to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley).

Mr. Peter Bottomley : With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.

We have already agreed that we will all meet MAVIS at Crowthorne in June at the mobility road show.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) has shown today, as she did on Second Reading, that she has gone into the details of the Bill. I know that she supports the Bill and we appreciate that the close work she has done with Lord Ashley is in the interests of people who are overcoming disability.

Although my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) said that he could not support new clause 4, I believe that some of his remarks lend support to an amendment that I hope will be discussed later today.

I am in a slight dilemma. If the estimate of the number of cases of appeal against refusal of the emergency control certificate came to 20, I calculate that my hon. Friend the Minister would be able to handle them personally at the

Column 640

rate of less than one a fortnight. I do not believe that anyone should have any doubt that that is not a matter of bureaucracy, but political judgment. My hon. Friend is well capable of making such a decision. If my hon. Friend is able to go to Crowthorne once a fortnight or once a month and went to one of the other mobility advice centres on the alternate fortnights, many would be persuaded to join him there, especially the media, who have done so much to help disabled people understand that they can get out and about, That would lead to even more barrier jumping.

You were kind, Mr. Lofthouse, when you did not call me to order earlier and I believe that I have an apology to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) because I was guilty of a degree of political incorrectness. I am sorry I described him as I did, but it was meant as a term of praise and endearment. If he does not want to be called a radical whatever--[ Hon. Members-- : "Turk."] I shall call him a moderate Conservative with overwhelming arguments.

If I have exaggerated the scope of the problem, it was well worth raising that apprehension now, rather than after the Bill has proceeded through the House. The most important thing to remember is that the assessors are doing all that they can to try to help people gain the capability, if they do not have it already, to execute an emergency controlled stop of a vehicle under their control. Most people will clearly be able to obtain a certificate without difficulty or they will not obtain one at all. I suspect that the numbers of people on the margins will be small as this is a bi-polar issue- -either people are capable or, quite clearly, they are not. The number of occasions when there will be doubt will be small. I disregard some of the arguments that have been advanced as I do not think that they carry weight. One argument that is valid involves someone at the margin who wants to become a professional driving instructor, when there should be no doubt. In those circumstances, a wait of six months--or whatever period is considered suitable subject to future amendments--is reasonable. Although my heart is with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), my head is with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North. The arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter were overwhelming. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Applicant's right to on-site medical examination

. Any applicant may, after giving notice of not less than three weeks, undergo a further medical examination at the site of his assessment centre undertaken by a doctor or qualified medical practitioner approved by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.'-- [Mr. Peter Atkinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments : No. 16, in clause 1, page 2, line 38 at end insert--

(7A) On production of a medical certificate by a doctor approved by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, any person previously recorded as disabled under section 125A(1) of this Act may apply to have the details of his disability

Column 641

removed from the register, and from his driving licence, and be notified by the relevant authority that such removal has taken place.'.

No. 18, in clause 1, page 4, line 37 at end insert

No. 20, in clause 3 page 6, line 35 at end insert

and--

Next Section

Home Page