House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 Apr 1993

Mr. Thurnham : That is it in a nutshell. I should be much happier if we were able to consider the matter in that way.

Sir John Hannam : I said that the letter to be considered would be either "D" or "R" for restricted. We can certainly reconsider the issue during the Bill's consideration in another place. It would be unwise to jump in and make a firm decision today.

Mr. Thurnham : I am happy to leave it at that. We have had a useful debate, and my hon. Friend's suggestion would leave everyone satisfied that they could examine a list of driving instructors and find those who are restricted for one reason or another without people being distinguished because of their disability. I should be happy to leave that to my hon. Friend and look forward to the Bill's passage through another place when the issue can be given every possible consideration.

Ms Walley : I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily, but the debate raises important issues. I endorse the suggestion that there is a valid reason for further discussions with the various disability organisations. The points made about not wishing to discriminate against disabled people are general and should be taken up right the way through the Department of Transport and perhaps by the Leader of the House.

I cannot let the debate end without making one observation. With the exception of the Minister for Roads and Traffic, every hon. Member who has spoken has talked of disabled driving instructors as "he", or male. [Interruption.] That will prove to be true if one reads Hansard. I should be heartened if the amendment acknowledged--

Mr. Heald rose --

Ms Walley : I shall not give way until I have made the point. If we want to outlaw all types of discrimination, we should consider the way in which we use the word "he" in the Bill.

As I said, I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily. There are many important issues, but we do not wish to contribute to the labelling of or discrimination against any group of people. Mr. Heald rose --

Ms Walley : The hon. Gentleman may catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily.

Mr. Heald : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The word "he" is always used in parliamentary Acts to mean he and/or she under the Interpretation--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is not a point of order for the Chair, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : On behalf of all the hon. Members who have expressed concern, may I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) that his response is very welcome. I am sure that we can find a way to remove any controversy or doubt while retaining the

Column 654

benefits. On that understanding, I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I understand that a manuscript amendment may not be acceptable at such short notice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : We now come to amendments Nos. 2 and 9.

Mr. Bottomley : My hon. Friend the Minister may be able to deal with this matter in one sentence on Third Reading so I do not propose to move the amendments.

Clause 3

Assessment of disabled person's ability to control a motor car in an emergency

Mr. Peter Atkinson : I beg to move amendment No. 22, in line 49 leave out six' and insert three'.

I shall not detain the House for long. Amendment No. 22 would reduce from six months to three months the time in which an applicant who had failed an assessment could reapply. It seemed on that margin that the six-month period was rather too long, given the importance of someone being able to obtain employment. It would be kinder to allow the applicant to reapply after only three months. I am aware that I may have been considered to be beastly to the applicant in amendments Nos. 15 and 17, so I have been kinder in amendment No. 22. On the margin, I felt that it might be better to reduce the time involved.

Sir John Hannam : It is an interesting amendment about which I thought deeply. The Bill states that a period of six months shall elapse before a further assessment may be undergone. We decided that there would be no fee for the assessment, but if the period between assessments is too short, we should be encouraging time wasters at the expense of the taxpayer. If the period is shorter, it is less likely that there will have been a material change in the person's physical condition, so a shorter period may encourage some people to apply for another assessment when the likelihood is that the outcome will be the same.

I suggest that we need to see how the provision works in practice. If it transpires that six months is an unreasonably long period to expect disabled people to wait before they can apply for another assessment, regulations can easily be made to shorten the period or to lengthen it if our experience of the operation of the Bill suggests that. I should like the provision to stay in its present form with the six-month period. We should see how things turn out and, if necessary, amend the provision in future. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Heald : I am concerned about the six-month gap between taking an assessment and taking a further assessment, given that this is not an area in which there should be a right of appeal. Indeed, thanks to our earlier decision, there will not be such a right. Given that there is no right of appeal, it could be unfair to an applicant to have to wait as long as six months before the next assessment and that might lead to a sense of injustice in those who wish to take the test again speedily. With most vocational qualifications, there is some gap before one can take the test or the examination again, but it is not normally as long as six months. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) will be prepared to

Column 655

consider the matter again. We do not have to push the matter to a Division today. Six months is rather a long time to wait for such reassessment, so I hope that the point can be considered again.

Sir John Hannam : By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I have made it clear that we shall have to look at the matter in the light of experience. No one is sure what the correct period is. With other forms of disability allowance, there are periods after which one can reapply. All that we can do at this stage is to take a period that seems to be reasonable and sensible. If necessary, it can be changed by regulation in future.

Mr. Peter Atkinson : I hear exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) says and I am grateful for his assurance that when the Bill comes into force, the practice will be examined to see whether the time scale needs to be reviewed. On that basis and as I see the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) waiting to proceed with his iniquitous Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill, I shall not detain the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule

Related and Consequential Amendments

Mr. Thurnham : I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 12, line 6, leave out four' and insert two'.

The amendment is designed to reduce the restrictiveness of the Bill. We have too many burdens on enterprise as it is. A new Domesday book has been produced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs who is responsible for deregulation. I have seen the book--I believe that a copy has been deposited in the Library--so I know that it is about 4 in thick. It lists all the burdens and restrictions on individuals and on enterprises. If people want to earn a living as a driving instructors, we should remove the restrictions as far as we can.

12.15 pm

Although the Bill is extraordinarily valuable and helpful in opening up an opportunity for people to earn a living as driving instructors when they have not been able to do so before, it contains various restrictions. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs has seen the Bill yet. No doubt it will be added to his Doomsday book of regulation. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) would give some consideration to an amendment which is designed to make life easier.

I do not know where the period of four years came from. I do not know whether the four-year period relates to provisions in existing legislation. Perhaps it could be relaxed somewhat to a period of two years, which would shorten the period in which someone is restricted. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter will consider that point so that we can amend the provision either now or in the other place. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who tabled the amendment with me, is now back in the Chamber. He may want to comment briefly on whether he is happy for the period to be reduced from four years to two years. Alternatively, there may be further discussion during the proceedings of the Bill.

Column 656

Sir John Hannam : This is rather strange. We had an earlier debate because of concern that we might discriminate against disabled drivers through an insistence on a distinguishing letter after their entry in the register, yet the amendment would create a form of discrimination against disabled drivers. The arrangements in the Bill are the same as the normal arrangements for non-disabled drivers. When one is registered, one has four years of registration. After that, registration lapses unless one continues to apply. The amendment seeks to deprive disabled drivers of the four-year and to replace it by a period of two years, after which they have to reapply. It would be unreasonable to penalise disabled drivers in that way. The amendment reflects a misreading of the Bill and it would discriminate against disabled drivers. I ask that the amendment is not pursued.

Mr. Thurnham : I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendent by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 12, line 51, at end insert--

(that he is disqualified in another Member State of the European Community or in a Commonwealth country.'.)

I should also be grateful to be told why a qualification obtained in another European Community country or in another Commonwealth country might equally not be acceptable.

Sir John Hannam : I am not at all clear why we should wish to amend the Bill as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) proposes. The schedule does no more than mirror the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which prevent someone who is disqualified from giving paid instruction or from holding a trainee licence. The existing legislation does not require such people to be removed from the register or to be barred from entry to it if they have been disqualified in a European Community or Commonwealth country. Nor does the existing legislation prevent an able-bodied person from obtaining or holding a trainee licence if that person is disqualified from driving in an EC or Commonwealth country.

Why should a disabled driving instructor or a trainee licence holder be subject to such constraints? How is the registrar to find out whether a disabled person has been disqualified in one of those countries? There is as yet no common driving licence record system covering all those countries, so there would be no possibility of implementing the amendment.

However, if it comes to the registrar's notice that a disabled person or an able-bodied person has been disqualified from driving in any country in the world, it is open to him to consider that fact in deciding whether the person is otherwise a fit and proper person for the purposes of registration as a driving instructor or as the holder of a trainee licence to instruct. The Bill and the current legislation do not specify what factors the registrar should take into account when determining whether a person is a fit and proper person. That is the best way in which to deal with the intent that lies behind the amendment.

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith) : The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) says that he does not know why Conservative Members want to amend his Bill. Let me

Column 657

assure him absolutely and categorically that his Friends have no intention of amending the Bill, and will withdraw this amendment just as they withdrew the previous one.

Mr. Thurnham : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has not been here for the debate. Genuine points have been made and only a few minutes ago we agreed that the Bill should, indeed, be amended--if not by manuscript amendment immediately, in the other place.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : That is not a matter for the Chair, although it may be a point of substance.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker : I hope that it is, indeed, a point of order.

Mr. Bottomley : When an accusation is made against an hon. Member, there are ways of dealing with it--by rebuttal, for example. If the same rules applied in the House as might come into effect if the hon. Gentleman's Bill were passed, I could claim an equal right to reply. I could go to a statutory authority and take the hon. Gentleman to court, and I suspect that he would lose his licence to be a Member of Parliament and to make factually inaccurate points in the Chamber.

Madam Deputy Speaker : I used to be a teacher, and I somehow feel that I have a class of small boys in front of me. Let us move on.

Mr. Soley : I am inclined to agree with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you for your protection. I merely wanted to give the hon. Member for Exeter the absolute assurance that there is no intention to amend the Bill. I knew that to be the case some time ago.

Mr. Luff : That is not true.

Mr. Soley : There is no intention to amend the Bill in this House and at this time. As the hon. Member for Exeter knows, his hon. Friends' purpose is to create problems for the Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill, and they will withdraw their amendment in due course.

Mr. Luff : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you clarify whether it is in order for an hon. Member who has not been present during the debate and who has not heard the arguments advanced by Conservative Members to cast totally false aspersions on those hon. Members' attitude towards the legislation in question?

Madam Deputy Speaker : That is not a point of order for the Chair. The occupant of the Chair is not responsible for the wisdom or otherwise of the words that are uttered, and that is a fortunate thing.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : I proposed to respond to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) in his reply to my amendment No. 12. The House will recall that we were interrupted when the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made the assertion that the amendments that had been tabled were not

Column 658

serious. I did not press amendment No. 1, because, as any hon. Member who was present will have heard me say--the hon. Member for Hammersmith was not present and will not have heard me--I wanted to avoid the amount of time that a Division would take. It is the understanding of the House that my proposal will be accepted. I see every prospect of the word "disabled" being changed to the word "restricted", although--for reasons which we would not be given if we asked for them--my manuscript amendment was not acceptable to the occupant of the Chair.

What the hon. Member for Hammersmith came in to say was wrong. I regret that, and I suspect that, when the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard , he will regret it. I shall not try to insist on an apology because it is better to deal with such matters by controversy rather than by using a sledgehammer to crack an hon. Member for Hammersmith.

My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has used the historic negative argument against amendment No. 12. It would be regrettable if the House and other member states of the European Community allowed the situation to continue whereby I might be disqualified for drink-driving in 11 of the 12 member states of the Community but could still come to Britain and carry on a trade as a driving instructor. That is undesirable. Perhaps it has arisen because of what the Road Traffic Act 1988 did or did not do. As I was the Minister responsible, I take responsibility for an unsatisfactory state of affairs. But there is no reason why, just because something was acceptable to me or to the House in 1988, it should remain acceptable in 1993, when we know more about such matters. We can deal with the problem relatively simply by asking people for a declaration that they have not been disqualified in another European Community or Commonwealth country. I suspect that, like many other measures to overcome handicap, the emergency control certificate provisions will be copied, just as the orange badge and other provisions have been adopted, in other member states. If we ask people, "Have you been refused an emergency control certificate or been subject to court disqualification?", they will have to answer the questions honestly ; after all, we rely on them to answer honestly the questions that are put to them when they first apply for a provisional licence or when they are over 70 and have to give a declaration of medical competence to drive.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle : It may help my hon. Friend to know that the whole question of how restrictions on driving

licences--endorsements--are treated as between common market countries is under consideration. We are trying to find a way in which to address the point that has been raised.

Mr. Bottomley : I accept the Minister's remarks and, in accordance with my earlier approach, I shall seek to withdraw the amendment rather than continuing with the debate that the subject clearly deserves. It might lead to a further eruption from the hon. Member for Hammersmith if we did what the House is supposed to do, which is to rectify what is wrong.

Mr. Thurnham : I do not know what has come over the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who conducted himself so well when he introduced his Bill and took it into Committee. Today, he has come here to disrupt proceedings on the Bill before us, and I am baffled why he should do that. If it results in anything, it will result

Column 659

in there being less time for us to debate his Bill. He has not been here to hear our extremely useful debate. We have agreed--I use the word loosely, Madam Deputy Speaker

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. It is all too loose. The hon. Gentleman must look at the amendment under consideration and address himself to that.

Mr. Thurnham : I am delighted to speak to amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which stand in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and for Worcester (Mr. Luff). Those amendments raise the important question of the relationship between Britain and the European Community, which we have debated at enormous length in recent months. I am not quite clear whether the qualification to which we have referred, which would enable disabled people to become driving instructors, will enable them to do that job throughout the European Community. The amendment should therefore be looked at in both lights : disqualification elsewhere should be a barrier to someone's carrying on here as though nothing had happened, but, equally, the opportunities that my hon. Friend's excellent Bill has provided for people to earn a livelihood in this country should automatically enable them also to earn their living in other member states.

Mr. Heald : One of my concerns about the amendment is that the whole question of road traffic control and the regulation of driving licences has traditionally been dealt with by this House and this Parliament, and not by Europe. I am concerned that the approach that is suggested runs contrary to the principle of subsidiarity because it allows matters within the competence of this House to be dealt with on a Europewide basis. It is wrong for a party that is fighting hard for subsidiarity to suggest that we should consider the matter on a Europewide basis.

Mr. Thurnham rose--

Mr. Peter Bottomley rose--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. We cannot have one intervention on another.

Mr. Thurnham : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was a little uncertain about how to cope with both points.

I should like to think that we would have an open situation. If someone is qualified to earn a living in a certain way in this country, that person may expect to be able to earn a living in the same way in other member states in the Community. If someone is a qualified driving instructor in another member state, one would hope that that person would be able to earn a living here.

Although we must consider the issue in terms of subsidiarity, I do not believe that it should be too great a problem. However, I am concerned about the fact that, in many areas, we are much more open than other countries in the Community. Someone can earn a living in this country as an electrician without having to be on a register of electricians. However, if that person goes to France or Germany, he may not be able to trade as an electrician unless he can enter his name on a register.

While an individual from another member state may come to this country and trade without restrictions, some restrictions apply in other member states. I hope that the whole matter can be opened and simplified.

Column 660

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

Mr. Thurnham : I wanted to cope with a point from my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley).

Mr. Peter Bottomley : On the grounds of subsidiarity, it is ludicrous to require someone like my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) to take a French driving test before he takes his car through France and, the minute he reaches Italy, require him to take an Italian driving test. It must make sense to have common recognition. It is important to see how far we can remove barriers. If someone wants to teach in different European Community countries, it is as important to have common recognition of a qualification as it is to have common recognition of a

disqualification.

Mr. Thurnham : I could not agree more with my hon. Friend's excellent point. If my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) responds to the debate, perhaps he will tell us the extent to which he feels that his initiative in this country will open up the situation throughout the Community as a whole.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle : We have entered a wider field. It is sensible for the House to recognise that the Bill relates to existing legislation. It does not involve wider European issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said, it is sensible that there should be a degree of uniformity. That would be helpful and we are considering these matters in a wider context. However, the issues are not truly within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Thurnham : I think that I have covered the points that I wanted to raise at this point and I am happy to leave the amendment as it is.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : I should like to force the amendment to a Division and take up another 20 minutes, but I will not do that. I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will stop provoking us from a sedentary position.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Is the hon. Gentleman seeking the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment?

Mr. Peter Bottomley : Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

Order for Third Reading read .

12.32 pm

Sir John Hannam : I beg to move, That the Bill be read the Third time.

I take this opportunity briefly to pay tribute to all those who have helped to make this Bill possible. We are talking about the removal of another piece of the wall of discrimination against disabled people. Although it will not benefit vast numbers of people, it is a very important step forward.

The barrier against the employment of disabled drivers has long frustrated people engaged in transport. In resolving that problem, I pay tribute to and welcome the support and assistance of my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic and the staff of the Department of Transport disability unit who have been instrumental in bringing the various threads together to produce this legislation. I am also extremely grateful for the support of all members of the all-party disablement group. Over the

Column 661

years, that group has secured a wide range of improvements for disabled people. The quiet, persistent determination of that all-party team has secured many of the steps forward that have been taken. I have no doubt that over the coming years, disabled driving instructors will join the staff of dri areas of employment. As the Bill passes to another place, Lord Ashley, my co-chairman of the all-party group, will guide it expertly through its legislative stages there. Our debates this morning have examined in great detail many of the aspects of the Bill that we were unable to discuss on Second Reading due to the truncated debate that we had on that occasion and to the short Committee stage. The advice, opinions and constructive suggestions that have been given this morning through the various amendments that have been discussed will prove invaluable in ensuring that the Bill, when it finally goes through the other place, wil be in the exact form that we should all like to see. Therefore, I ask the House to approve the Third Reading.

12.34 pm

Mr. Soley : I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on his good Bill. When we spoke about the matter some time ago, he knew that there was a danger that it could be talked out. I made it clear that I would not do anything of the sort because private Members' Bills need some protection. A review of the procedures of the House is long overdue to ensure that hon. Members who have a chance of getting Bills debated have the same sort of protection as Government Bills. We cannot talk out the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and we could not talk out the poll tax Bill. We should not be able to talk out Bills of this sort, and that is important.

At one stage, the hon. Gentleman seemed genuinely worried--I hate to see anyone suffering mental distress--that his hon. Friends would amend his Bill here. Clearly, they did not, and we knew that. I am grateful--

Mr. Peter Bottomley : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the absence of the hon. Member for Hamersmith (Mr. Soley)--undoubtedly, he was briefing the press at the time on what he thought was going on here--we almost carried an amendment which, I suspect, would probably have been accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). The amendment not having been accepted--it was not possible to get it perfect-- the hon. Member for Hammersmith should stop repeating things that he has already said which are wrong. They are matters of debate and matters of fact. When an hon. Member has been corrected, it would be a courtesy to the House not to repeat the same repetition on the same day. It would lead to a buzz on a radio programme, but not now.

Madam Deputy Speaker : That is not a point of order for the Chair, but it may well be a subject on which an hon. Member wishes to intervene. But let us be quite clear about the distinction between a point of order for the Chair and an hon. Member seeking to intervene to deal with what he thinks is an inaccuracy.

Column 662

Mr. Soley : I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. Obviously, I agree with your ruling. The point is that I simply said that amendments would be withdrawn--and they have been withdrawn. The issue is that when one seeks--

Mr. Luff rose --

Mr. Soley : I will give way in a moment. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) should stop panicking. [Interruption.] I have no need to panic. I am the last hon. Member who needs to panic. When attempts are made to alter a Bill by other methods, that can be applied to my Bill as well. I could make manuscript amendments. Conservative Members have tabled one or two amendments to my Bill which are useful. If they had discussed the matter with me, we could have amended this Bill in precisely the same way. But it is a red herring.

The important point is that Bills such as that of the hon. Member for Exeter are welcome ; they should be allowed through. Generally speaking, the Government should stay out of such matters. I am grateful to the Government Whips for telling me that debate on my Bill will start at about 12.30. That is always an indication of some involvement of Government Whips. Given the letters that I have--

Madam Deputy Speaker : What does this have to do with the Third Reading of this Bill? I think that the answer is nothing at all.

Mr. Soley : I submit that it is marginally relevant. But I will leave it to one side and simply say that it is an advantage to be able to debate Bills properly. That is what we should do on all private Member's Bills, so that they have the considered and appropriate response, with genuine amendments of the sort that they may need from time to time. We should not bring the House into disrepute by using it in a way that people outside do not understand.

12.38 pm

Next Section

Home Page