§ The Earl of Caithnessasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will itemise and quantify the "cost and intrusion" mentioned by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey in Grand Committee on the Railways and Transport Safety Bill on 5 June (Official Report, col. GC 288) in connection with amendments about driving with uncorrected defective eyesight. [HL3317]
§ Lord Davies of OldhamThe "cost and intrusion" mentioned by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey in Grand Committee on the Railways and Transport Safety Bill on 5 June cannot, of course, be itemised and quantified precisely at this stage. However, in terms of costs, if the amendments in relation to driving with uncorrected defective eyesight148WA which were debated were to be accepted, drivers would be faced with bills for regular vision tests (the cost of these varies across the UK between £10 and £20) and with having to purchase two new pairs of spectacles or lenses whenever their prescription changed. The requirement for regular eyesight testing would generate a significant number of additional transactions at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and, given that the driver licensing system is required to be self-financing, the considerable cost involved in processing these would have to be met by all licence holders in higher licence application fees. The "intrusion" which my noble friend Lord McIntosh spoke of referred to the inconvenience that would be caused to the majority of drivers, who do not have defective eyesight and who would presumably be compelled to carry documentation confirming this.