House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 Apr 1993

(c) a medical certificate from a qualified medical practitioner approved by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency detailing every relevant disability or prospective disability.'.

Mr. Atkinson : The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), on a point of order, questioned the motives of some of us for taking part in today's debate on the Bill. I may think that the hon. Gentleman's Bill about the press is an iniquitous attempt to censor it, but I am speaking today because I have a specific interest in the disabled. My constituency contains Hexham hospital, which is the regional centre for spinal injuries for the whole of the northern region. Therefore, I see at first hand the effects caused, particularly to young people who are seriously injured in road and industrial accidents. They frequently come into town so we see how their recovery progresses and how people with appalling, crippling injuries can become much fitter and restored. The sort of measure proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) provides exactly the opportunity that such people need to find a different job. Therefore, I warmly welcome the Bill, which removes another barrier to the disabled.

Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) : My constituents live side by side with the Stoke Mandeville spinal injuries unit. Constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House will regard the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) as providing important new opportunities to disabled people. I think that our constituents, as well as hon. Members, will resent some of the insinuations contained in the remarks by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).

11.15 am

Mr. Atkinson : I agree with my hon. Friend, and appreciate that, as he has the Stoke Mandeville unit in his constituency, he has even more experience of what happens than I do.

One of the problems that people face on their way to recovery is that of their future. Many of them receive compensation for industrial and motor accidents, but life looks bleak unless they can find something worth while to do. That is why the Bill is so good, and why I largely support it. The only purpose of my amendments is to seek clarification on one or two issues.

I join in the congratulations to the Department of Transport, whose officials have clearly been extremely helpful. We often forget their role. The input of those at the disability unit must be particularly warmly welcomed by those of us who have sought their advice. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic bears in mind my kind words when I come to him seeking a new bypass in my constituency.

The purpose of the new clause and the amendments is to seek clarification about the role of the medical assessor

Column 642

when granting disabled people licences to become driving instructors. Had I gone to MAVIS, who has been mentioned a number of times, my questions would have been answered. I was interested to read the report by the Standing Committee on the Bill and the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter about MAVIS I must make an effort to go down to see her for, if no other reason than to eat the rock cakes, of which I am particularly fond, and which my hon. Friend mentioned on Second Reading.

One of my problems relates to when an applicant has a licence granted to him as a disabled driver some time after he visits MAVIS seeking the certificate to become a driving instructor. I am not sure how up to date the medical advice needs to be. The problem is that a disabled driver's licence could have been issued some time ago, and when he arrives at MAVIS his licence could be old and his condition could have deteriorated. The assessor who grants the emergency control certificate will have to make some form of medical judgment about the person seen on the day. I was trying to find out about the advice that the assessor would have in order to make that judgment. I see that on Second Reading it was said that the assessor would have access to medical advice, but I should like to know more about that advice.

New clause 5 gives the applicant the right to claim an on-site medical assessment provided notice is given. I floated that suggestion because it is important that if there were a dispute about the disabled person's condition, that person should be able to turn to an approved medical adviser and doctor for representation on the day. That might overcome some of the problems.

I also want to explore the medical qualifications of the applicant's assessors. They will clearly be skilled in driving and driving instruction. I am anxious to know more about their medical background. That matter was raised a number of times in the Second Reading debate, which was brief, and in Committee, which was also brief.

On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who is not present, talked about regular retesting and I think that the duty to disclose further disability was mentioned. A disabled driving instructor with a progressive condition has a duty to reveal that to the authorities. However, if someone makes a living from instructing--and given that being disabled makes earning a living harder--clearly, it would not be to his advantage to reveal that his condition was deteriorating, even if he had an obligation to do so. There is regular retesting, but I should like to know the length of the intervals before which the person with the licence is required to return for a test. Obviously, that would depend on the disability. In some cases, it might be advisable for a person to be retested every three months, but for others it might be necessary only every year, which I believe is the maximum allowed.

My other amendments follow the same line in that they require an applicant to provide a medical certificate. They also require that when the DVLA grants a licence, it can insist that the successful applicant returns for regular medical tests. I tabled the amendments because I was not sure whether the Bill covered this point--at least, I could not see it in the Bill. It seemed to me that the Bill perhaps leaves it too much to the disabled instructor's own volition to come forward. Of course, if he does not, he will commit an offence ; but I thought that my provision was in the interests of public safety.

Column 643

One of the other amendments deals with wiping the medical record clean, on medical advice, if a person is cured of his disability. This relates to amendments in a different group by means of which I have sought to incorporate notes of the disability in a record. It will of course be important to note the nature of people's disabilities so as to know whether their condition is likely to get worse. Neverd the Member for Exeter will be able to shed some light on this subject. I reiterate that I believe this to be a worthwhile Bill. My hon. Friend deserves great credit for it, and I wish it an easy passage into law.

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam) : I warmly welcome the Bill, the more so because I know of the deep commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannan) to getting a fair deal for disabled people in all walks of life.

We all feel a sense of involvement in trying to help disabled people. In my constituency, I have meetings with the Sutton Disabled Association and I know how strongly its members feel that they should have access to all the jobs that able-bodied people have. I am sure that they think that they should be able to become driving instructors, too. A cousin of mine has no hands, but he drives around very deftly. Why should not he be an instructor?

I sympathise with new clause 5. It is important to accord a high priority to a rigorous health examination. That in no way demeans the disabled person. Disabled people do not seek positive discrimination, and it should be clear to all that they are wholly capable of becoming not just drivers, but driving instructors. If there is any doubt about a person's medical condition, he should have the right to ask for a further examination to prove that he is perfectly capable of the task. Likewise, his medical condition should be regularly assessed ; we should not rely on his revealing whether he is fit to become a driving instructor.

The Bill can achieve a great deal. It is important to remove all elements of doubt about people's ability to become instructors. After all, learner drivers need to feel confident that their instructors are as capable as able-bodied drivers. That is why this group of amendments deserves serious consideration.

Again, I wholeheartedly congratulate my hon. Friend on the Bill. It is long overdue.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), and I apologise for having to speak now with my back to her--one cannot face in both directions at once, unless one is a better politician than I am. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) will allow me to speak against his new clause, although I should point out that his remarks may have made it possible to hold truncated debates on other groups, because he ranged widely over the issues.

The test of the assessment should not be whether a driver can make an emergency stop. Any driver needs to be able to do that. The question is whether a supervising driver can bring a vehicle to a controlled stop if the trainee gets out of control. The nearest analogy that I can think of would come from the occasional campaigns to require new

Column 644

drivers and experienced drivers to be extensively eye-tested. Of course, the real test is whether they can see what they need for driving--can they read a number plate at the specified distance? That should show whether their eyes are working well. Eyesight is not usually the key factor in crashes anyway. It is often young people, who have the best eyes, who have the most frequent and the worst crashes.

The point at issue, I repeat, is whether the person will be able to bring the vehicle to a controlled stop. I do not see how medical examinations are relevant to that. Passing or failing such examinations will not necessarily help. The only instance in which an examination would help is when people have disclosed the fact that they have a condition that is predicted to get worse. Some of the other provisions of the Bill may then be used to ensure that they present themselves for retesting.

I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) has to say in response. I recommend that we stick to the practical question : will the driving instructor actually be able to bring the vehicle to a controlled halt?

Mr. Heald : The Bill deals with people whose driving licences are limited under section 92(5)(b) of the Road Traffic Act--people who require a vehicle of a particular construction or design to be able to drive safely. The sort of people who have a medical condition that is likely to deteriorate over a fairly short period are usually dealt with under section 92(4)(b)--the section in which the Secretary of State must not refuse to grant a licence

"on account of any relevant disability which is prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph if the applicant satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed with a view to authorising the grant of a licence to a person in whose case the disability is appropriately controlled".

If a person's condition is deteriorating, the Secretary of State is entitled to impose particular conditions on his driving licence to take account of that. Is it not true that most of the people covered by the Bill will not have deteriorating medical conditions--at least not to any great extent? Will they not mostly be people with stable conditions who need a car that has been adapted?

Mr. Bottomley : I agree. That was most helpful.

Sir John Hannam : The new clause and amendments all relate to medical examinations or changes in medical circumstances. I hope to be able to persuade the House that they are not necessary. The Bill takes the driving instructor approval process onto new ground--to include disabled instructors. As well as the requirement to hold a full driving licence, an applicant will need to get through the three stages of the qualifying examination : the written theory test, the test of driving ability and, finally, after a training period, the last practical test. That applies to everyone becoming a driving instructor, and the same conditions will apply to a disabled driver who has to satisfy all the requirements. The Bill takes us into new ground under clause 3, where we have assessment of the ability to control a motor vehicle in an emergency, so that the necessary emergency control certificate can be issued. Assessment of a disabled person's competence to take control of a moving vehicle is not a medical assessment of that person's condition.

Column 645

11.30 pm

A disabled person's medical condition will be relevant only in so far as it impinges on his ability to control a vehicle in an emergency situation while giving instruction, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) pointed out, with or without the additional modifications to the vehicle that may be necessary. The assessment of emergency control proposed in the Bill will not be a medical assessment. The disabled person, whatever his medical condition at the time of assessment, will be required simply to demonstrate the necessary emergency control. If the disabled person can satisfy the assessor on that, he will be issued with a certificate which will enable him to apply for registration as an approved driving instructor, assuming that he passes all parts of the examination.

The new clause envisages a potential disabled driving instructor undergoing a further medical examination at the assessment centre. Why "further", given that the emergency control assessment will not entail a medical examination? If the disabled person can demonstrate satisfactorily to the assessor that he can exercise emergency control, the person's medical condition is relevant only, first, in respect of what additional modifications to the vehicle, if any, the assessor may specify in the emergency control certificate and, secondly, the time period, again if any, after which the assessor considers the person should undergo a further assessment of emergency control ability.

There is no medical examination, only an assessment of the condition of that person, and when he may be required to be brought back again for another assessment.

In reaching his view on those aspects of the emergency control assessment, the assessor will use his professional and specialist knowledge of the sorts of vehicle modifications that are available to assist a disabled person give safe driving instruction. Where a disabled person has a progressive illness that reduces physical capacity over time--that will apply in some cases--the assessor will, if needed, have access to medical advice from the Department's medical adviser at the DVLA, and the Bill places on the applicant a duty to disclose such details of his physical disability as the Secretary of State may require. If, in the rare case, the assessor considers it would be helpful for the applicant to undergo a medical examination, he can inform the applicant accordingly, and request, but not oblige, the person to have the examination and to inform him of the outcome, before finally making a decision on the details of modifications. In that case, the medical examination is aimed purely at arriving at the right kind of modification needed for the vehicle to be used by the disabled driving instructor, or for the time period to be specified. Therefore, the new clause is not required because we are not carrying out medical examinations and do not need to do so at the time of the assessment.

Amendment No. 16 appears to be designed to allow a previously disabled person who has taken advantage of the Bill, but is no longer disabled, to become an unrestricted driving instructor, and also, rather bizarrely, to have details of the disability removed from his driving licence. The Bill is designed to enable physically disabled people who meet the conditions to become driving instructors, but with the limitation that they can give paid driving instruction only in a vehicle and class covered by the person's limited driving licence. In practice, that means automatic cars with any additional modifications, which

Column 646

will be specified in a certificate. The Bill is not designed to deal with those who, for whatever reason, are no longer suffering from a relevant or prospective disability.

If a previously disabled person, who is registered as a disabled driving instructor, wishes to have that restriction removed from the register, the person must first obtain a full driving licence in the normal way. In other words, if a person who has recovered full physical capacity, such that his driving licence need no longer be limited by virtue of the earlier disability, there is nothing to prevent that person from taking and passing the driving test in a car fitted with manual transmission, and thereby obtain a full driving licence.

The production of a medical certificate, as envisaged by the amendment, will not be sufficient to change his driving licence in any material way. While there may be circumstances where limited improvements in physical capacity are such that certain restrictions may be removed from the driving licence, existing driver licensing regulations cater for such circumstances. There is no need for such a provision in the Bill.

If a previously disabled person obtains a full driving licence, that person can apply to the registrar for inclusion in the register under the terms of the existing legislation governing able-bodied driving instructors. The person would no longer meet the conditions proposed in the Bill. In practice, it is highly likely that a previously disabled registered driving instructor would wish to apply for unrestricted registration, since that would enable him to offer his instructional services to a wider market. There is no need for that to be enshrined in legislation in the way that the new clause proposes. Therefore, I hope that it will not be pressed to a vote. The Bill provides that a disabled person may be included in the register of approved driving instructors, on condition that, at any time, he submits himself to a further emergency control assessment and a test of continued ability of fitness to give instruction. That applies also to able -bodied instructors, as at present. Amendment No. 18 speaks of a "medical examination". What matters is the ability to control a vehicle of a class covered by the driving licence, with any additional modifications, which may be specified. It is that emergency control ability, and general driving ability, which concern the registrar. If the registrar requires a registered disabled instructor to undergo a further emergency control assessment because, for instance, the person had notified the registrar that his disability had worsened, as he would be under a legal duty to do, it would be the outcome of that assessment which interested the registrar, not the outcome of any medical examination.

If, on a reassessment of emergency control, the assessor is no longer satisfied that the disabled driving instructor can exercise the necessary emergency control, the Bill provides for the certificate to be revoked. On receipt of notification of recovation, it will be an offence for the disabled driving instructor to give paid instruction, thereby preserving road safety interests, even though it may take a little longer for his name to be removed from the register. We are covering every possible aspect of road safety. Throughout the whole of the process, a medical examination is not relevant.

Amendment No. 20 would be extremely bureaucratic. It would provide some copper plating to minimise or remove the risk of applicants making incomplete declarations as to the nature of their disabilities. We

Column 647

debated how a disabled driving instructor may want to hold back from giving the necessary information. The amendment would place an unnecessary burden on the disabled person, who would have to incur the cost of acquiring a medical certificate before applying for an emergency control assessment. There is no evidence to suggest that such a measure could be justified on road safety grounds. Most physical disabilities will be obvious and the condition will be stable, for example in the case of paraplegics, and even where the disability is progressive, other provisions in the Bill adequately deal with that.

It is important to draw the distinction between applying for the emergency control certificate and later entry to the register of approved driving instructors. At the time of the certificate assessment, the declaration of disabilities and prospective disabilities will be to aid the assessor form a view as to the nature of any modifications to the vehicle that may be necessary for the purpose of giving instruction, and the time period to be specified after which further emergency control assessment should be undertaken. A medical certificate will not add anything to the assessment of emergency control. The person, whatever his certificate says, will either be able or unable to control the vehicle in the simulated situation. It is as simple as that.

When a disabled person has been included in the register, or when he holds a trainee licence to instruct, he will be under a statutory duty to inform the registrar if he becomes aware either of a relevant or prospective disability that he has not previously notified or of a previously notified disability that has worsened. A person who fails to comply with that duty will be guilty of an offence. On receipt of such notification, the registrar can require a person to undergo a further emergency control assessment. That, again, provides the necessary road safety safeguard.

We have to assume that disabled people are as law abiding as those who are not. The burden on the disabled potential driving instructor, which would be entailed by requiring the production of a medical certificate, cannot be justified, given all the other safeguards in the Bill. I hope that I have convinced my hon. Friend and the House that the new clause and the amendments are unnecessary.

Mr. Peter Atkinson : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said at the outset, this is a popular measure. Because of the time constraints on private Member's Bills, it flew through its Second Reading and Committee stage. One of the consequent disadvantages was that a few points were not fully explained. I am, therefore, grateful that my hon. Friend has dealt so fully with the points that I have raised. He has clarified the position. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

Registration of disabled person as driving instructors

Mr. Peter Bottomley : I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 14, leave out

as that of a disabled instructor'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments : No. 3, in page 2, line 18, leave out with an indication that he is a disabled person'.

Column 648

No. 15, in page 2, line 19, at end insert

, and note the relevant disability against the applicant's name.' No. 5, in page 2, line 32, leave out

as that of a disabled instructor'.

No. 7, in page 3, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert

"a registered disabled instructor" means a disabled person whose name is in the register'.

No. 17, in page 3, line 35, at end insert

, and whose disability is noted against his name on the register ;'

No. 8, in page 4, line 26, leave out

as that of a disabled instructor'.

No. 6, in page 4, line 28, leave out a registered disabled instructor' and insert registered'.

Mr. Bottomley : As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said, the House wants to make progress. Therefore, if I say just a few words now, it may not be necessary to deal with all the other amendments that have been selected for debate.

Amendment No. 1 picks up a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir. J. Hannam) made in an earlier speech. We want to treat people the same, overcome barriers and get rid of discrimination. The new section 125A which, under clause 1, is to be inserted in the Road Traffic Act 1988 contains, in subsection (1)(c), the words "may apply to the Registrar for his name to be entered in the register as that of a disabled instructor."

The words

"as that of a disabled instructor"

worry me. If we have overcome the barrier, I do not know why the label should be left intact. That is the question that I must put to my hon. Friend. It is possible that the House will not press the issue to a Division. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the amendment, but if he cannot do so I hope that he will reconsider it before the Bill goes to another place.

11.45 am

On file there will be information about what has happened, but once someone reaches the stage of having qualified as a trainee driving instructor, or as a driving instructor, without qualification, why should we make it a matter of law that that person's name should be entered on the register

"as that of a disabled instructor"?

I have tried to anticipate the answer, but I cannot think of one that is generally acceptable, so that it is a worry. If it were possible for my hon. Friend or the Minister to say whether a fee is likely to be paid for entering the name, whether or not the amendment is accepted, we should know a little more about the response to the debate, if we have one, on amendment No. 2, which deals with the question of a fee, if any.

Perhaps I may trespass on my hon. Friend's patience by looking forward to amendment No. 11, which would change the period of four years to two years and--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for many years. I am sure that he realises that he is dealing with amendments unrelated to those under consideration at present. I hope that he will stick to the ones that we are dealing with.

Mr. Bottomley : I shall say not another word about them, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would just point out that before you took the Chair there were objections from an hon. Member who thought that we intended to delay the proceedings. I want to put it on record that we are trying

Column 649

to accelerate the proceedings as fast as we possibly can. I shall not add another word to what I have already said, apart from asking why it is not possible to have the European Community and Commonwealth exemption, which is the subject of amendment No. 12.

Sir John Hannam : This group of amendments can be divided into two-- amendments Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 6, tabled in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), and amendments Nos. 15 and 17, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). The first group seeks to remove the identification of disabled driving instructors from the register. Although it may appear to be a sensible move, I believe that I can show that it would be unwise to do so. In order to assist those who wish to consult the register of approved driving instructors, separate identification is considered to be necessary so that people who consult the register in order to get driving instruction--possibly from a disabled driving instructor, because they fall into that category--can identify those disabled driving instructors who are authorised to give paid instruction in automatic vehicles only.

If a disabled driving instructor were not identified in the register as such, an able-bodied person who wished to obtain a full driving licence covering cars fitted with manual gear boxes would have his time wasted by approaching that registered instructor. As a result of the Bill, many driving instruction schools will have on their staff disabled driving instructors. Therefore, someone approaching a school to seek driving instruction could find, when it came to the appointment, that the instructor was disabled and therefore able to give driving instruction only in cars fitted with automatic transmission.

Separate identification would also be helpful for disabled people who want to be taught to drive an automatic vehicle by a disabled instructor. We have to accept that the area of activity of disabled driving instructor will certainly concentrate largely on other disabled drivers--people who become disabled through accidents and wish to become licensed drivers of vehicles. In many cases, they will seek out someone with the expertise to understand their disabilities and needs. Therefore, identification is part of the requirement.

Mr. Thurnham : I am not entirely happy about this aspect of the Bill. I cannot understand why my hon. Friend's points could not be covered just by saying that the driving instructor will give instruction only in cars fitted with automatic gear boxes. I imagine that in a country such as America there are more driving instructors who give instruction only in cars with automatic gear boxes than there are driving instructors who give instruction in any car. I am not entirely happy with the idea that we should discriminate between driving instructors who are able-bodied and those who are not, for the purpose of indicating whether they can use a car fitted with an automatic gear box.

Sir John Hannam : I accept that point, which must be considered carefully, but we must also carefully consider the provision of necessary information to people seeking driving instruction.

Column 650

Mr. Peter Bottomley : The House has a genuine difficulty, which it could spend much time debating. May I put this suggestion to my hon. Friend? Will he consult the chairman and members of the disabled persons advisory committee and their officials to see whether it is possible to have disabled people entered on the register not as "disabled instructor", but with whatever qualification may be appropriate? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham suggested earlier, it might be sensible to consider the point in another place.

Sir John Hannam : I should like to pursue my arguments to their conclusion because, to a certain extent, they answer the nature of the concerns that are being expressed about the definition of the entry on the register.

I have dealt with the need to identify the disabled driving instructor on the register so that an able-bodied person can ensure that he does not receive instruction from a disabled instructor in an automatic vehicle and so that disabled people can ensure that they are taught by a disabled instructor in an automatic vehicle. Separate identification is necessary for enforcement purposes. The Driving Standards Agency enforces the approved driving instructors scheme to ensure, among other things, that people who are getting paid for instruction are registered to do so--that they have valid certificates of registration. A disabled driving instructor, unlike his able-bodied counterpart, will be limited to giving paid instruction in a vehicle of a class covered by his limited driving licence, with the additional modifications for the purpose that the assessor may specify in the certificate. It will be unlawful for a disabled person to give instruction either in a vehicle of a class not covered by his limited driving licence or in a vehicle of a class covered by his limited driving licence but without the necessary modifications as laid down in the emergency control certificate. To ensure proper and effective enforcement of the conditions that apply to disabled registered driving instructors, it is essential that the register separately identifies disabled instructors. The Bill does not propose the creation of a separate register for disabled driving instructors. The separate identification would be minimal--literally, the letter "R" for restricted or "D" for disabled at the end of the registration number, with an alteration to the certificate of registration to show any modification that the assessor has specified in the control certificate.

Mr. Heald : Is not one of the problems that the way in which the person is entered on the register is the trigger for a host of provisions in the Bill which protect the public on grounds of safety? I am looking at proposed new section 125B(6), which says : "The entry of a person's name in the register as that of a disabled instructor shall be subject to the condition",

which it then lists, about submitting to further assessments and so on. Without that entry on the register in a different category, there would be no trigger for many of the safety provisions. It is difficult to see, from a drafting point of view, how the mechanism could be triggered in another way. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has any suggestions about that, but it is difficult to see how it could be drafted effectively in any other way.

Sir John Hannam : This is the crux of the argument. It is a balanced decision. Obviously one does not want the

Column 651

Bill to be discriminatory, but nor do we want the register to be misleading. The register, and the information on it, could trigger subsequent actions. I should very much like to consider this point again when the Bill is in the other place. At the moment, I should be inclined to advise the House not to accept the amendments and I hope that they will be withdrawn to enable us to reconsider them. Interestingly, amendments Nos. 15 and 17, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, work the other way, as they would require a description of actual disabilities, which is a problem area. The argument advanced in the amendments is slightly unclear, but my hon. Friend seems to think that including the nature of the disability might be helpful. The registrar of approved driving instructors would have no reason to record the nature of the physicial disability in the register. The nature of the disability is not relevant. All that the registrar needs to know is that the person has a current emergency control certificate and, as long as the disabled person possesses that certificate, that he or she has passsed the qualifying examination as a driving instructor and is a fit and proper person. As long as those requirements are satisfied, that person's name will be entered on the register as a disabled driving instructor.

The entry on the register showing that a person is disabled will be confined to one letter after his or her registration number, so anyone consulting the register would know that a person is disabled and cannot instruct in cars fitted with manual transmission. Separate identification, but not the nature of the disability, is relevant for enforcement purposes, but the nature of a person's disability is relevant to the emergency control certificate. For example, the person may have a progressive illness that leads to increasing loss of physical capacity. In those circumstances, the certificate may specify, as we have already discussed, a period after which the registrar may order the person concerned to undergo further assessment. The currency of the emergency control certificate is relevant to the purposes of the register and not the nature of the disability. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the amendments.

Mr. Peter Atkinson : My hon. Friend's remarks clarified the matter, for which I am grateful. I had not understood the position from his earlier remarks, but I do now and will not push the amendments.

Lady Olga Maitland : I do not support the amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). I fear that he is slightly confused in suggesting that a denoting mark beside a disabled driver's name is a slur on him or her or is some kind of discrimination. It denotes a statement of fact and it is important that people know from the register who is able-bodied and who is disabled. These provisions have a positive element because a disabled person seeking a disabled driver to instruct him could find an instructor who understands his problems and could provide a car adapted for his needs.

There has been a slight misunderstanding about the letter identifying a disabled instructor. It does not it that we are speaking to all these amendments, but I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) might have had a little more to say. He spoke only to amendment No. 1.

Column 652

I am still a little unhappy about the separate register of disabled instructors because there are few other spheres of life in which a disabled person is shown as such on a register, unless he chooses so to appear. People can choose to be registered disabled for employment purposes, but, in this case, as I understand it, it is not a matter of choice. If someone is disabled, he will end up on the register of disabled driving instructors whether he likes it or not.

Lady Olga Maitland : Does my hon. Friend agree that a person's physical capability is enormously important if he is a driving instructor? We are not talking about a disabled clerk, secretary or bank manager. In this case, disability is relevant.

12 noon

Mr. Thurnham : Many issues are relevant, including a person's abilities in other respects. I feel instinctively unhappy about the fact that, whether a person likes it or not, he is to be entered on the register. It is a valuable feature of our society that, in other spheres, people do not have to register as disabled if they do not want to. There has been a great debate about employers meeting quotas in employing registered disabled people. Often employers employ people who are disabled but who do not want to be registered as such. It would be wrong for the House to force people to be registered as disabled for employment purposes.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle) : I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) said. It is a matter of practicality rather than discrimination. First, one wants to be helpful to people who are looking for driving instruction. If a disabled person wants to learn to drive, it would be helpful for him or her to be able to go through the list of driving instructors and seek out those who they can be confident will be able to teach with a manually controlled car. It is a helpful and practical measure for disabled people who want instruction.

Secondly, we must be aware of the problems of enforcement, an important issue stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter.

Mr. Thurnham : I am grateful to the Minister for putting it so well. Although it would be a valuable facility for disabled people to be able to choose a disabled instructor because they believe that that would be the best way of receiving instruction, I am worried that the Bill offers no element of choice. A person will appear on the list whether he likes it or not.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : I take the blame for that. The amendment proposes to leave out words, but I should have anticipated the need to include a qualification in the register. We are discussing what the qualification on the register should be. I suggest that it should be "restricted", because the driving instructor is to be restricted in the type of vehicles he can drive, not whom he can teach. It has nothing to do with disability. It is the consequence of overcoming the disability which requires a restriction on the vehicle to be driven. If the Chair will accept a manuscript amendment, I will change the original amendment. If the Chair will not, we shall have to take up time with a Division and require an amendment in another place to add the word "restricted" or, having aired the

Column 653

issue, we shall have to rely on the good sense of my hon. Friend and those advising him to change the word "disabled" to "restricted".

Next Section

Home Page