| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is always difficult speaking to amendments that have not been moved, but I suspect that I should.
Perhaps I may start where the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, left off. His encouragement to the Government was to ensure that genuinely benign meetings were able to take place. We believe that our amendment is preferable. It protects that position and enables such meetings to take place. We provide a statutory defence in the clauses we have drafted, which is important. I am sure there is confidence on all sides of your Lordships' House that that will be the case. It certainly would not be our intention to endanger such meetings. In many circumstances, that would be counter-productive.
Our great difficulty with the drafting of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, concerned the key issue of the public interest. It is an interesting test. However, I seriously question whether it is the right way to go about it. A number of questions have to be asked; for instance: who is to say whether a meeting is in the public interest; in what circumstances? Moreover, who is to say whether it is reasonable to believe that the meeting is in the public interest? Such a defence would probably lead to lengthy legal argument. Our concern was that such a defence would drive a big hole through Clause 12(2)(c). It may be the case that some would like to see a big hole driven through it, but I do not think that would be right. To use a good old-fashioned term, we have tried to strike a balance. I believe we have it about right.
I hear what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and understand the point at which he is driving. However, I believe on balance we have got it right. For those reasons, I believe that our amendments should receive the support of your Lordships' House this evening. I am encouraged that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has withdrawn his amendment in favour of ours.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam moved Amendments Nos. 12 and 13:
- Page 7, line 25, leave out ("and (3)") and insert ("to (3A)").
- Page 7, line 26, at end insert--
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 14:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Port and Border Controls]:
Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 15:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 16. The amendments address the issue of the provision of passenger information to which we have returned at virtually every stage of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.
On Report we took up one of the suggestions made in Committee to the effect that information should be provided "as soon as is reasonably practicable". Since then we have considered the further representations made on Report which focused on the offence provision for non-compliance with a duty under the ports provisions of the Bill. As we explained then, we did not think that the statutory defence approach did the trick, as it appeared to provide a carte blanche for less than co-operative carriers to ignore altogether requests to collect information.
We propose instead that the threshold for the non-compliance to bite be raised from "knowingly" to "wilfully". So, if a carrier makes every effort to collect the requested information but it is simply not possible for some reason, even within a reasonable timescale, the courts could take the view that no offence had been committed.
We believe that the amendments are a helpful addition to the Bill in that they underline our commitment to the provision of reasonable as well as effective passenger information provisions under the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is a small but useful improvement to the Bill.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Cope. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that this issue had been raised at every stage. I speak as a paid-up member of what the noble Lord described at one stage as the "transport lobby", and I am proud to do so.
It was worthwhile raising this at every stage because we have gained not only some useful amendments to the Bill, but words in the speeches of the Minister which are encouraging. I thank the Minister for having produced the amendment. I hope I can assure him that the transport industries will do their very best to comply with the legislation. I am glad to see that one of the Ministers for transport has just entered the Chamber because, no doubt, he will also take this view. We will do our best to co-operate. I hope that the legislation succeeds.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of both noble Lords who have spoken. This small step forward will be welcomed by those in the ferry industry who may be affected by the Bill.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the expression, "small but useful" is exactly right. I congratulate the body, which
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 16:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
I shall say just a few formal words because they need to be put on record. At Second Reading I predicted that our discussions on the Bill would benefit greatly from the wealth of experience in your Lordships' House. I am happy to report that that prediction was entirely correct. We have been able to draw on the specific understanding of a number of Members of your Lordships' House covering the workings of government from a ministerial perspective, hands-on knowledge of the difficulties faced in Northern Ireland and the civil liberties lawyers who are rightly concerned to ensure that the ECHR legislation is properly understood in the context of this Bill.
While it is always dangerous to single out individuals, it would be wrong of me to let the moment pass without recording particularly my debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. His inquiry into legislation against terrorism provided us with an important series of insights and also a framework around which to ensure that we get the Bill right.
The general principles underlying the Terrorism Bill received support from all sides of the Chamber. It is important that the House has been united in its determination that everything must be done to tackle the evil of terrorism. I am extremely grateful to all of those who contributed, from all sides. It improved the quality of legislation. It has also been the House at its best in terms of scrutinising the quality of legislation. In that regard the Government and the public should feel well served.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I rise briefly to echo what the Minister said, both in the thanks to the Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part, and in particular to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I thank also Mr John Rowe QC and his predecessors who produced annual reports on terrorism which have also been drawn on in the preparation of this legislation.
This is a better Bill than when it started its passage through your Lordships' House. But I echo strongly what the Minister said about the joint determination of all those in this House and in another place, and throughout the country, to fight terrorism in whatever form it occurs. Terrorism attacks democracy. It
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I add my thanks to those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. It seemed to me that the work done by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, was extremely important and has had fruitful results. On behalf of my party I too express condemnation of terrorism in its manifold forms and a recognition that it is now something that cannot be regarded as confined to one country. At the same time, it is clear that no civilised government can afford to override the civil rights of those suspected of terrorism in a desire, however justifiable, to prevent or restrict it. I am therefore grateful to the Government for taking on board a number of the points we made on those issues.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Lord Harrison rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the review of driving licence regulations, which currently prevent insulin-treated diabetics from driving vehicles over 3.5 tonnes and many passenger carrying vehicles, will examine the merits of individual assessment of fitness to drive, taking into account the practices of other European Union States.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, diabetes is a nasty, vicious and brutal disease which strikes indiscriminately and inopportunely. The recent loss of our good colleague in another place, Bernie Grant, testifies to that fact. It is also a disease which the majority of diabetics contend with well and go on to live long, useful and fulfilling lives.
In opening this debate I must declare myself a lifelong member of Diabetes UK (formerly the British Diabetic Association) whose recent successful publicity campaign highlighted the fact that as many as 1 million people in the United Kingdom are suffering from diabetes, although as yet they remain undiagnosed. However, the Question this evening concerns a great injustice against diagnosed diabetics, some of whom, through no fault of their own, find their livelihood threatened by a driving ban based on a misunderstanding about what it means to be a person with diabetes.
Since 1991, new applicants on insulin or existing drivers moving to insulin have been barred from driving large goods vehicles and large passenger-carrying vehicles, although so-called "grandfather rights" exist for those drivers licensed to drive such vehicles before that date. In 1998 the Government's stringent implementation of the second EC Driving Licence Directive, took away insulin users' entitlement to commercial licences to drive other vehicles such as mini-buses and smaller lorries weighing between 3.5
The Science and Technology Select Committee of the other place examined this matter and published its report in March of this year. The committee cast doubt over the evidence used to justify the blanket ban and variously described current regulations as "illogical", "arbitrary" and "inconsistent". My noble friend Lord Whitty himself conceded in evidence to the committee that the UK's restrictive position on renewing driving licences for employment purposes for people with diabetes is based on "inaccurate" information.
It is unsurprising then that the said committee called for a review of the current regulations and a feasibility study on implementing individual assessment of fitness to drive. My hope is that the Government will act on those recommendations sooner rather than later because a large number of people face a threat to their livelihoods while the current system remains in place. For example, last month I met a council worker from Kilmarnock who lost his entitlement to drive his road sweeping vehicle, which is over 7.5 tonnes, despite the fact that it is driven at an average of five miles an hour and that his diabetes is acknowledged as being "well controlled". Many other examples of those whose jobs have been threatened or lost were given as evidence to the Select Committee. I understand that the Diabetes UK CareLine continues to take calls from worried drivers on a daily basis.
I said in my opening remarks that those policies are based on a poor understanding of diabetes. The misunderstanding at the root of the blanket ban appears to be that diabetes affects all people in the same way and therefore equally impairs their ability to drive. That is very wrong. Some people are not in good control of their diabetes. They may be unable to spot the warning signs of hypoglycaemia, which include hunger, sweating, tremor or faintness. Others may have poor eyesight or nerve damage as a result of their diabetes. Of course, many of those people should not be on the road at all. However, many insulin users are in good control of their diabetes; have never suffered a hypoglycaemic episode at the wheel and have an exemplary road safety record. Those people, too, are subject to the blanket restriction of Group 2 licences. Why are those low-risk cases treated the same as the high-risk cases?
The broad brush approach is unjust. It fails to take into account the individual. If it were a fair approach, it would be much better to remove licences from males under the age of 25 because statistically they are far more likely to have road accidents. Clearly that is absurd. But it reminds us of the general principle of human rights: that people should be treated as individuals and not discriminated against for being part of a group. People with insulin-treated diabetes should be tested individually and the decision to issue a licence should be based on an individual's ability to pass stringent annual health checks by a diabetes specialist. My own diabetes specialists feel that this is quite capable of being done.
Some of your Lordships may be aware that I served as a Member of the European Parliament for a number of years until 1999. During that time I engaged in a great deal of correspondence on this matter in which the United Kingdom Government claimed that their position was arrived at as a result of European legislation and that they were unable to make substantial changes to the current position because the UK is bound by European directives. My understanding was then, and is now, somewhat different. EC Directive 91/439 does indeed state that people with diabetes requiring insulin treatment can be issued Group 2 licences "only in very exceptional cases".
Beyond this, however, it is up to member states to decide how best to implement the directive. Several countries, including Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium, have a case-by-case medical procedure in place. The UK imposes a blanket restriction, having decided that there were no individual cases that can be regarded as sufficiently exceptional for concessions to be allowed. I must say it seems rather absurd to decide that exceptional cases do not exist without even examining the individual cases.
I find it difficult to understand why the DETR continues to argue that individual assessment is unacceptable under the directive when the Commission appears to be unconcerned about the other countries taking this route. Of 20 infringement proceedings currently pending for various presumed infringements of that EC directive, I understand that none--I repeat none--relates to the diabetes clauses of the directive.
It appears that the Select Committee is unconvinced both by the Government's interpretation of European law and by the medical evidence which forms a basis for that law as it applies to people with diabetes. The most comprehensive independent review of the available evidence to date--an independent study made by Dr Ken McLeod of the University of Exeter--concluded that road safety,
The Government must have a very good reason if they want to continue to endanger people's livelihoods and to compromise their driving rights. The reasons that I have heard Ministers give to date can be summarised in two parts: first, that a blanket approach is important for road safety; and, secondly, that the European Commission would prevent the United Kingdom from applying individual assessment, since this would in any event contradict European law. It now appears that both assertions are highly questionable. In the light of this, perhaps I may urge the Minister to look afresh at individual assessment as the basis of a safety-conscious licensing policy that replaces a discriminatory blanket ban.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitty for being here today to answer the debate. I understand that a meeting has already been arranged with colleagues from Diabetes UK later this month. I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his very helpful reply to my recent Starred Question in this House.
In all this, road safety for all our citizens is paramount, but in observing this desideratum let us not penalise the human rights of a small but important group of our people, through a lack of sense and sensibility.
(", and
(b) a meeting is private if the public are not admitted").
Page 55, line 38, after ("sections") insert ("12(3A),").
Page 110, line 28, leave out ("knowingly") and insert ("wilfully").
Page 110, line 30, leave out ("knowingly") and insert ("wilfully").
7.13 p.m.
"cannot be justifiably achieved by restricting the driving privileges of those who have consistently been exonerated from claims that they pose a significantly greater risk than the general driving population".
7.24 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I am sure we should all thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for drawing our attention to this important subject. Let me go immediately to what I think is the main thrust of his argument; namely, individual assessment. Every time we start to deal with something with a blanket ban, we must ask why we have a blanket ban and what it is trying to achieve. If it is trying to achieve greater road safety, why are we trying to single out one group which does not appear to represent a greater risk than other groups?
I was also rather confused by the idea that unless you know exactly who will be at risk within a certain group, you should not do anything except in a very individually focused way. The individuals in this group are so diverse as to make it virtually impossible for them to be called one section. That was the main thrust of what was said. As to the category involved, in my non-transport oriented, naive way, I thought that a vehicle of 3 tonnes might be every bit as dangerous as one of 3.6 tonnes. So there is an area on the borderline, and one is left wondering again what we are trying to achieve by this ban.
If people who have diabetes are thought to be dangerous drivers, why are we not paying attention to their driving licence as a whole? If an out-of-control car strikes a large lorry or a small truck it can cause the same amount of destruction on the road as a small truck striking a car. There does not seem to be any rhyme or reason in this situation.
Also, we have the restriction of "grandfather rights". I have never been terribly keen on those, as a matter of principle, but if they exist why take them away from somebody who has no record? However you look at this matter, it seems to come back to one question: do we consider the individual as the point of contact? If we are going to do this we need to have an assessment, and preferably an independent assessment.
A Member of your Lordships' House, who cannot be here tonight, pointed out that an elderly relative of his had damaged a number of cars recently and seemed to have various ailments. His doctor told a relative: "Oh, I have known him for years and I have many worse on my books". Surely we should have an independent assessment if an assessment is to take place, rather than one done by the family doctor. I hope that at the end of our debate the Minister will say
that we will start to look at these cases on their individual merits with an assessment of individual risk. That is all we are asking for.The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, pointed out that there are legal approaches to the problem. Certainly there is an argument to be made. Surely we can make sure that we have a coherent approach which pays attention to the rights, and liabilities, of the individual. We are not saying that a person who is at risk behind the wheel, or at least a potentially higher risk than other people, should be given any special treatment because they happen to come within a certain group. We are simply saying that they should have an assessment, which should be regularly updated. I think that is most advisable.
I can think of many drivers who do not have diabetes but who would not in any way suffer from updating their driving skills. If we could do this, surely we would not hurt anyone and we might expand the opportunity for employment to a slightly different group. We could also get rid of an anomaly.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Harrison for introducing this subject and allowing this discussion in your Lordships' House tonight. To begin with, I must declare an interest. I am a diabetic--sorry, I am not really supposed to say that! I am a person with diabetes. I am also a trustee of Diabetes UK, which is still probably better known as the British Diabetic Association, or BDA. I still have trouble with the new name so I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I lapse into calling it BDA.
Diabetes UK has about 200,000 members. It is the charity for people with diabetes and their carers. A major problem which concerns the association and its members is that under discussion tonight; namely, the arbitrary and discriminatory prohibition which prevents people whose diabetes is being treated with insulin from earning a living driving goods vehicles and some passenger carrying vehicles. This blanket ban--as has been said, that is what it is, particularly as regards people newly diagnosed with diabetes who require insulin treatment--is not based upon scientific evidence or upon any risk assessment. We have the ban because, according to the House of Commons Select Committee report, the Ministry incorrectly told the honorary advisory panel that other European Union member states were applying a ban. Fortunately the blanket ban, in effect, is being re-examined by the advisory panel.
That brings me to the main point that I wish to make tonight. Diabetes UK welcomed the announcement in May that there would be a review of licence regulations and has offered to help. It has access to much scientific and medical experience from highly qualified people.
I remind the House of some of the recommendations of the Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology. First, it recommended that the Government examine the merits of Diabetes UK's proposals for individual assessment. Secondly, it recommended that the Government and Diabetes UK jointly identify an insulin-treated diabetic--even the committee got the terminology wrong--to attend meetings of the advisory panel. Thirdly, it recommended that the advisory panel should meet annually with Diabetes UK.
- "to enhance public confidence, the panel's proceedings need to be more open; and consultation with interested organisations like Diabetes UK needs to improve".
As my noble friend has said, people's livelihoods, now and in the future, are being affected by this arbitrary and discriminatory blanket ban. I welcome the review but let us get it right. In his evidence to the Commons Select Committee my noble friend conceded that mistakes have been made in the past. I fear that if DETR officials take forward this review in isolation from the views and expertise of those affected by this matter, any revised regulations may turn out to be as arbitrary and unfair as the current regime.
I cannot overstate the urgency of this issue. Today in hospital outpatient clinics up and down the country diabetologists are telling professional drivers either that they have diabetes which needs to be treated with insulin injections, or that the current method of treating their diabetes through diet and tablets is not working and therefore they must resort to insulin injections. If drivers follow that advice--they would be wise to do so--they automatically lose their licence to drive heavy goods vehicles and usually their employment. This is why individual assessment is so vital.
In conclusion, I ask my noble friend when he anticipates that the review will be completed and when--we hope--revised regulations will be introduced.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, at noon today I missed by a few moments the deadline for adding my name to the list of speakers for the debate. I was involved in other business in the House at the time.
I compliment and support the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on the informed and constructive way in which he has presented the urgent need for a review of the regulations in regard to insulin dependent diabetic drivers driving vehicles of over 3.5 tonnes. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that, while the
vehicle licensing agency in Northern Ireland constitutes a separate organisation, the regulations are the same as for the rest of the United Kingdom. I thank noble Lords for giving me the opportunity to make that point.7.35 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for being absent during the first couple of minutes of his speech. I was in the Princes Chamber and had not realised that the business of the House had changed. I am sorry not to have been present and to have been rude to Members of this House.
This is a difficult subject but an important one for those affected by it. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, pointed out the different relevant characteristics of different diabetes sufferers. As a mother of two young women with a mild seizure condition I understand the range of disability which can be covered by any one condition. I support the noble Lord's views on that matter. He is right to emphasise that some people are being prohibited from earning a living through the approach that is currently taken in this country to the issuing of drivers' licences.
My noble friend Lord Addington rightly emphasised the human rights aspect of this matter. That is important. I sympathise with the points the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, made with regard to the correct terminology. As one gets older, one has to revise one's terminology in almost every context. I hope that I shall not fall into any trap today in that regard.
I believe that there is a general feeling that something should be done to change the present situation. On the other hand, one must still bear in mind safety considerations, both as regards people with diabetes and other road users. The case for modifying the UK interpretation of the European regulations seems clear. Prior to 1991, insulin-treated diabetics were not prevented from driving heavier vehicles. However, after 1991, those people were barred from driving HGVs but, as my noble friend Lord Addington said, existing licence holders were allowed to retain that right under so-called "grandfather rights".
Since 1997, on the other hand, the directive on the scope of Group II licences has been interpreted in a way that has resulted in a large number of potential drivers losing the right to drive any vehicle over 3.5 tonnes. Yet it seems that there is no statistical basis for saying that drivers with insulin-treated diabetes are more accident-prone than others. The Science and Technology Committee agreed that the driving licence regulations are illogical and inconsistent and that there is little evidence to support the current policy. On the other hand, some persons with diabetes who held a commercial Group II licence prior to 1997 may still be able to get such licences renewed for vehicles between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes. Diabetes UK provides the information diabetics need to get through that process.
People with diabetes, unlike those with other conditions, are not individually assessed, although it is said that EU regulations provide for that. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, gave us chapter and verse on that subject. On the other hand, diabetics, like other people with a licence to drive vehicles of up to 3.5 tonnes, can drive a minibus of under that weight with 16 people aboard so long as it is not a paid activity. This seems inconsistent with other regulations on heavy vehicles and safety on the road and all the other matters that are brought into this argument.
This curious jumble of prohibitions and permissions seems to justify the Science and Technology Committee's strictures about illogicality and the lack of statistical justification for the present situation. The case for a change of approach seems clear and the Government's willingness to reconsider the current position is most welcome.
A problem for all of us is the lack of evidence of risk. My first question to the Minister is whether he has any statistical evidence which shows either that people with diabetes are more likely to be involved in an accident or which shows that they are not any more likely to be involved in an accident.
The case in justification of the present situation has not been heard today. However, I know that some people with experience of diabetes in their family would oppose any extension of access to a driving licence. They justify that approach on the basis of the ever present danger of a hypoglycaemic attack and the degenerative effect of the condition upon eyesight and muscular and nervous control.
One can understand the force of that approach--which is based on knowledge of the condition and of those who suffer from it, and upon the concern for safety--but the existing criteria by which some insulin-treated diabetics can get licences for driving vehicles from 3.5 tonnes to 7.5 tonnes already include an absence of serious attacks while driving over a 12 months' period; regular self-monitoring of sugar levels; and an examination by a specialist hospital consultant, who will want blood glucose records for the past 12 months. My second question therefore is: why cannot all sufferers from diabetes who apply for a driver's licence be subject to that process? The licence could then be given or withheld according to how the process comes out.
The Government are reviewing this whole matter following the report of the Science and Technology Committee in another place, but the points made by other noble Lords are well worth re-emphasising. First, will the review involve people who are themselves suffering from diabetes or their representatives? The possibility of it coming to a conclusion after a period of months and then coming slap up against the views and experience of people who are suffering from the condition or of their representative is serious; it would damage the good impression that has been made by the Government's willingness to review the whole situation.
There is also the issue of the advisory panel and the fact that no persons with diabetes attend the panel, even as observers. My last question to the Minister concerns those two points. In particular, will he take up the recommendation of the committee that observer status on the advisory panel should be awarded to persons with diabetes?
7.43 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for introducing this timely debate. The noble Lord has described the problem lucidly and accurately; I shall not repeat his arguments. I do not disagree with anything that noble Lords have said tonight; I hope that the Minister will not change that situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, raised this subject on 3rd May by way of a Starred Question. The Minister said encouraging things on that occasion, but I accused him of allowing for the gold plating of EU regulations. I say that because I recall a very similar problem with EU eyesight regulations. EU regulations on eyesight were naturally tightened up, but, as a result of the changes, UK drivers would lose their existing entitlements to vocational driving licences but other EU drivers would not. During that campaign I raised an argument by means of PQs which suggested that a Dutchman with a standard of eyesight that would disqualify him from a UK licence could still drive in the UK.
We face exactly the same problem here. A Dutchman could pass a Dutch medical assessment and then drive in the UK; but a UK driver with exactly the same medical condition would not be able to have a UK driving licence at all. During the debate on the Starred Question, the Minister pointed out that the Dutch driver would have had to pass the medical assessment programme. That is exactly what we are asking for.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, in his excellent speech, asked why it was okay to drive a 3 tonne vehicle but not a 3.6 tonne vehicle. I am sure that the Minister will point out from his brief that driving commercial vehicles involves hard work, an unpredictable work pattern and, in particular, an unpredictable eating pattern. However, if the Minister follows that line he will have forgotten that people with diabetes well understand their condition and will obviously avoid a driving job that is unsuitable. Surely a sales person with diabetes, working under considerable pressure, poses just as great a risk even if he is driving only a car.
Can the Minister confirm the assertion of his noble friend Lord Harrison that he will shortly have a meeting with the Diabetes Association?
Perhaps I, too, may take the opportunity to congratulate the select committee in another place on its useful, measured report, a matter referred to by other noble Lords. It has proved very useful in informing our debate. I am sure that the Minister will take careful note of its conclusions. The Minister has responded positively already to many of the select committee's observations.
We on these Benches believe that the safety of all road users must be paramount. I am certain that no noble Lord will disagree with that. However, it is important to remember that EU directives are not written in tablets of stone. If necessary--I emphasise "necessary"--Ministers should be prepared to ask the EU to look into a matter again. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, raised some interesting issues that may give the Minister food for thought in regard to the point about going back to the EU. We must remember that the key point is the interpretation of the EU regulations. At the moment the Minister is applying a blanket ban, whereas other countries use a discretion.
We need to recognise the difference between being taken ill at the wheel--which would mean pulling over onto the hard shoulder or a safe place and recognising that one is in trouble with a diabetes condition--and actually having an accident. The House will be very interested to hear from the Minister how many accidents have been caused by a motorist coming to grief through diabetes; not a diabetic having an accident--I hate to use the word "diabetic".
We on these Benches believe that a blanket ban is unfair. We must have an independent medical assessment panel. Of course there are obvious dangers in using a GP's report in isolation, although information from a GP will be valuable. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, drew attention to the difficulties that the GP himself would have in making the final recommendation.
The Minister may point out that there is a slight but measurable risk in going down the route of the medical assessment programme--he may be right--but there are greater risks in driving; there are risks through drink, drugs and poor anger control, or road rage. Thinking out loud, perhaps we could offset any slight increase in risk of accident by requiring insulin-dependent diabetics to have an advanced driving certificate. We know that advanced drivers have fewer accidents after their training. Therefore they can enjoy preferential insurance rates. Perhaps I may suggest we could end up with a situation where an insulin-dependent diabetic could have the same overall risk by being an advanced driver. I appreciate that it might require EU agreement before implementation. What is the view of the Minister on reducing risk by increasing the standards of driving?
I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to give a full answer today, but of course I will have the opportunity to raise this matter in greater detail during the passage of the Transport Bill.
Finally, I turn to minibuses. Minibuses can be driven by volunteer non-professional drivers who are insulin-dependent. That matter was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. It was raised in the select committee report. It is a serious problem because passengers in a minibus are frequently vulnerable passengers and may not be in a position to make an informed decision about the risk they are taking. They may be unaware that the driver of the minibus is an insulin-dependent diabetic. If we are to allow insulin-dependent diabetic drivers to volunteer to
drive minibuses, perhaps we ought to take the precaution of insisting that the minibus is double-manned. Therefore if the driver feels the onset of a diabetic episode, someone could take over; otherwise he may be in the very difficult position of being 50 miles from home, late at night and unable to stop although he is feeling the onset of a diabetic episode.Many excellent points have been made tonight. I hope the Minister will be positive in his response.
7.51 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Harrison for raising this issue again. It is an ongoing concern, as was pointed out by the Select Committee of another place, and one which concerns many people up and down the country who suffer from diabetes. It is one which has therefore caused my department and the DVLA--and no doubt the DVLA in Northern Ireland-- some concern as to whether the present regime is fair.
In practice we are moving along the lines, or very similar lines, that my noble friend suggests. We have started to work on the possibility of individual assessment of fitness to drive. However, we need more information on that. We are seeking information from other member states, from the European Union and the European Commission. Not all of that is as clear or in the single direction that my noble friend and others have implied. But it is clear that we need to examine the position in other member states and then look at our own regime in the light of that.
However, I think that one can be too simplistic about this because we are under a number of constraints. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Harrison have suggested that we are over-interpreting--that may also be behind the reference to gold-plating of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee--the European directive. The European directive, which in one sense, has stood for some time, refers explicitly to:
- "Only in very exceptional cases may driving licences be issued to or renewed for drivers suffering from diabetes mellitus and requiring insulin treatment, and then only where justified by authorised medical opinion and subject to regular check ups".
That does not apply to all people suffering from diabetes. Drivers whose diabetes is treated with tablets or diet only are allowed to hold a licence to drive large goods vehicles and passenger carrying vehicles in any case. The difference between them and insulin-dependent diabetics is the risk of a sudden disabling
attack of hypoglycaemia, which can result in impaired awareness or unconsciousness. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about the statistical basis for the assessment of higher risk. The statistical basis is not available. There is not an effective and robust analysis of the level of risk involved. However, there are a significant number of incidents reported over the years by the police and others attending accidents which indicate that there are accidents due to drivers losing control while suffering from hypoglycaemic attacks.
We recognise the inadequacy of the statistical base for that and the base that has been adopted across Europe and indeed many other countries. We have therefore initiated a programme of research recently which will help to establish the risks and to assess more accurately which drivers pose an unacceptable risk to road safety and which do not. At the moment there is not a robust base on which to make that judgment.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page