HC Deb 31 May 1956 vol 553 cc457-66

  1. (1) In subsection (2) of section five of the Act of 1930 (which provides that a licensing authority shall, subject as therein mentioned, refuse to grant a licence if from the declaration it appears that the applicant is suffering from any disease or physical disability which would be likely to cause the driving by him of a motor vehicle, being a vehicle of such a class or description as he would be authorised by the licence to drive, to be a source of danger to the public) after the word "appears" where that word first occurs there shall be inserted the words "or if on inquiry into the matter the licensing authority are satisfied".
  2. (2) After subsection (2) of the said section five there shall be inserted the following subsection:— "(2a) Where the holder of a licence at any time becomes aware that he is suffering from any disease or physical disability as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section 458 but which was not disclosed in the declaration made by him under that subsection when he applied for the licence or where such a disease or physical disability was so disclosed but has become worse since the said declaration was made, he shall forthwith notify the licensing authority to that effect". —[Mr. Skeffington.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington (Hayes and Harlington)

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

I should mention that the proposed new Clause has the full support of several county councils, including the London County Council. I say that not because I believe such a commendation is always warmly received by hon. Members opposite, but because it is of some value in this connection, since the London County Council undoubtedly issues more driving licences than any other authority. Last year, it issued about 660,000, and, as a result of its work over many years, the council built up a good deal of experience and knowledge on the matter.

The Clause, which is divided into two subsections, is aimed at remedying the present position, which creates some difficulties for the local authorities issuing driving licences and may increase dangers on the road. It aims at tightening up the conditions governing the granting of driving licences. Subsection (1) deals with the difference between the conditions governing the refusal to grant a driving licence and those governing its revocation. Except in very rare circumstances a licence can be refused only if, from the applicant's declaration, it appears that he or she is suffering from a disease specified in the 1930 Act, or from a physical disability which would be likely to cause him or her to drive dangerously, or become a source of danger to others.

In the case of the revocation of a licence, the licensing authority is allowed to use information other than that supplied by the applicant. It sometimes happens that the authority receives police information as to the applicant's condition and fitness to drive a vehicle. This is so particularly in the case of authorities outside London, who have police departments. The information thus received from the police can be used in the case of the revocation of a licence, but not in the case of a refusal to grant one; in the latter case the decision must be based purely upon the information supplied upon the application form.

Information may also be forwarded to the licensing authority by the parents or near relatives of a person, who know that he or she is suffering from some disease or physical disability, but, strictly speaking, the licensing authority is not permitted to use such information in refusing to grant a licence. Parents who know the real facts sometimes disclose them to the authority. This information can be used to uphold a revocation, but not a refusal to grant a licence. Subsection (1) would put the conditions in relation to the refusal to grant a licence upon the same footing as those which now apply in the case of a revocation.

It seems to be a very reasonable proposal, and I think that it would help generally, in the interests of safety. If the Minister feels that the additional information should be strictly limited, it would be quite easy to insert, in a subsequent stage of the Bill, words such as "information from the police", or "information from a near relative," or something of that sort. I am quite prepared to agree that a limit should be placed upon such additional information, if the Minister thinks it desirable, but in the interests of road safety I urge him to support the provision of the subsection as being a very reasonable one.

Subsection (2) deals with the new situation which will arise if the periodicity of licences is extended to three years instead of one. Under Section 5 of the 1930 Act. any local authority has power to refuse or revoke a licence where the applicant is suffering either from one of the specified diseases or from some physical disability, and the present requirement of Section 5 (1) of the Act is that the applicant shall make a personal declaration of fitness when he applies for a licence. In present circumstances, that has occurred every year, and it is not unreasonable to assume that in the intervening 12 months nothing very serious is likely to occur in the condition of the applicant, but if the period is extended to three years, as the Minister now proposes—which is an appreciable time in the life of the individual—a disease or a disability may become very much worse in that time.

The Clause provides that there shall be an obligation upon the applicant to notify the licensing authority if his condition, for the reasons which I have mentioned, deteriorates during the currency of the licence. There are sonic obvious examples. A man's sight may deteriorate quite considerably over a period of three years, so as to make him a greater risk on the road. There are other conditions. Epilepsy has a tendency to get progressively worse. It may have been of such a character that it was considered safe at one time—although I believe that it is in fact a specified disease. There are other conditions, which, during the period of three years, certainly could have an increasingly serious effect upon an individual's fitness.

Therefore, in the interests of safety, it is considered by authorities such as the London County Council, with its great experience of these matters over many years, that if the period of currency of a licence is to be extended to three years the applicant ought to be placed under an obligation to notify any serious alteration in his condition. That is the purpose of subsection (2).

I apologise for the fact that I was not a member of the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill, but I understand that the Minister then gave an assurance about the health of an applicant in connection with the Government's proposal to introduce a new Clause extending the period of currency of the licence. I understand that he assured the Committee that when the currency of the licence was extended all the relevant considerations would be taken into account. But the Minister's new Clause, introduced yesterday, made no reference to the physical fitness of drivers during this longer period. I hope that the Minister will feel that the terms of the proposed new Clause provide the proper way of strengthening the Bill in the light of the new conditions which will arise as the result of extending the period of the licence or, alternatively, if he does not feel that the words proposed are suitable, that he will indicate that this is a matter which he feels should be dealt with before the Bill leaves the House.

Mr. Somerville Hastings (Barking)

I beg to second the Motion. In my opinion, as a doctor, more road accidents than is generally realised are caused through the lack of perfect fitness of drivers, and anything which can be done to ensure and maintain perfect fitness ought to be done. Subsection (1) of the proposed new Clause deals with the question whether, in granting a first licence, all circumstances should be taken into account, including information derived not directly from the applicant but from any other possible sources. I need not remind the House how dangerous epilepsy is. It can cause sudden unconsciousness or partial unconsciousness, and sometimes epilepsy comes on not in childhood, but in adult life. It is not always clear to the person concerned that he has this disease. It may be that the doctor does not make it clear to him or that the person concerned does not want to know about it. I think that in such cases, if the licensing authority by any means obtains such information, it should take advantage of it.

Subsection (2) deals with conditions which may be getting worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) spoke of deterioration of sight. That may happen, and while, in many cases, deterioration of sight can be put right by glasses, it cannot in every case. In optic neuritis and other conditions of the eye, glasses have no effect whatever. In cases of deterioration of sight which may not be sudden. the difficulty of the driver is in determining distance, because this is done by binocular vision.

If the sight of one eye deteriorates more quickly than the sight of the other, one will be able to see quite well, but will not be able to estimate distance correctly. In such a case, it should be the duty of everyone driving a car to acquaint the authorities, and a licence to drive should not be granted. I strongly support the new Clause on medical grounds. if passed, I think it will do a good deal to increase safety on the roads.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson)

rose

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Molson

I should like to thank right hon. and hon. Members for their congratulations on the honour which has been conferred upon me.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), has explained that the Clause falls into two parts. As regards the first part, the law at present is laid down in Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. It requires an applicant to state, when he applies for a driving licence, whether or not he is suffering from a disease or a physical disability which might, if he drove a motor vehicle, cause danger to the public. Further, if from the declaration it appears that the applicant is suffering from any such disease or disability, the licensing authority must refuse to grant the licence.

Different views are held whether the licensing authority is entitled to look beyond the declaration made by the applicant. I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harling-ton that the London County Council does not consider that it is entitled to look beyond the declaration. I am advised that there is a difference of opinion between local authorities on this matter, and that the majority of the larger ones do, in fact, avail themselves of any information which may come to them from outside and which tends to suggest that the applicant is suffering from some ailment of that kind.

Mr. G. R. Strauss

They are acting illegally.

Mr. Molson

It is a matter of opinion whether that is so or not. I am sure that it is extremely desirable that local authorities should have that power. We think that the hon. Gentleman, acting, as he indicated, rather on the suggestion of the London County Council, has put forward a most valuable proposal and we are prepared to accept it in principle. I think that the wording of this part of the new Clause is not entirely apt for its purpose, but, if the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to withdraw it, I will undertake that we will try to devise words and insert them in another place.

I come now to the second part of the Clause. It is quite true that when we were considering in Committee upstairs the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) to extend the currency of a licence from one year to three, I said that I thought that in the period of three years there might be cases where the physical health of the holder of a driving licence might deteriorate, and that, therefore, there was something to be said for an obligation being put upon the holder of the licence to inform the local authority if such a deterioration took place.

4.45 p.m.

We have considered the matter carefully and we have come to the conclusion that it would prove to be completely unworkable. In the vast majority of cases, the holder of the licence might not be aware of the deterioration that had taken place. It is extremely difficult to say what deterioration would put him under that obligation, and there is obviously no machinery by which local authorities could make it operative. Indeed, almost the only cases in which he could be brought within the operation of this Clause would be where an accident had happened and, as a result of the inquiry that then took place, it was found that a deterioration had taken place.

We are of the opinion that however desirable it may be—and it certainly is—that the holder of a driving licence who finds that his health has deteriorated should surrender his driving licence, this is one of those cases where it is not possible effectively to legislate to compel people to do what every reasonable and public-spirited person would do.

Mr. Strauss

The right hon. Gentleman has dealt only with half of the second part of the new Clause. There are two points. The one, which he has dealt with, where the condition of illness has deteriorated, and the other, which appears to me to be more important, where a person has developed, say, epilepsy since the time he originally made his application and the licence to drive was granted. The right hon. Gentleman was proposing to sit down without dealing with that point, and I hope that he will do so, because it seems to me that there is a strong case there.

Mr. Molson

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing that to my attention, but, clearly, the main point that I was making also applies to that. A licensing authority has no machinery by which it can ascertain the state of health of those who have held licences which might well have been issued nearly three years previously.

Mr. Strauss

That is the holder of the licence.

Mr. Molson

The point is that under this Clause it will be the duty of the holder of the licence to notify the licensing authority. I say that any publicspirited and reasonable person who knew that his health had so deteriorated that he would be a danger to the public if he went on driving would cease to drive and would surrender his licence, but the only purpose of legislating for such a case is to enable the local authority to enforce that rule of prudence.

Under the new Clause, as drafted, no offence is created; all that is done is to say that there is an obligation upon him to report it, but it will not be an offence for him not to do so, nor is any penalty provided. I did not emphasise that' point because I wanted to deal with the matter of substance, and the matter of substance is that we do not think it desirable to impose by law an obligation upon people if it is quite impossible to devise any means by which that obligation can be enforced.

We are happy to accept the principle of the first part of the new Clause and will see that the appropriate words are inserted in another place, but we could not advise the Committee to accept the second part of the Clause.

Sir Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Heeley)

I wonder whether I could ask a question. It concerns the principle of hearsay evidence. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied —and I am asking only for guidance— that if, on some hearsay evidence which is incorrect, a local authority withholds a licence, the applicant has the right or the means to appeal against that? It seems that in accepting the first part of the new Clause it would be possible to create a position in which, through erroneous information, which it accepted in good faith, the local authority withheld the licence. I am anxious that my right hon. Friend should consider that point before he introduces fresh wording in another place.

Mr. Molson

As the law stands, an aggrieved applicant could go to court on the ground that the licensing authority had no right to refuse to grant the licence. We will certainly take into account the point which my hon. Friend has raised when we redraft the new Clause.

Sir P. Roberts

It would be undesirable to have to go to those lengths.

Mr. Skeffington

As the first speaker to follow the right hon. Gentleman, may I congratulate him upon the honour conferred on him? I am sure that we were all very pleased to learn about it. The right hon. Gentleman's observations on the first part of my new Clause suggest that this has sweetened his attitude. Perhaps we shall have to think of even further honours for him, and then I might get the whole of the new Clause.

I am obviously in a difficulty in that if I refuse to accept his offer I get nothing. He has conceded the principle of the first part of the new Clause. If it is possible for some local authorities to consider other information, of a carefully chosen kind—and there is some point in the comment made by the hon. Member for Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) then all local authorities ought to be on the same footing and there ought to be no dubiety about it. No doubt the conditions can be fairly carefully defined so that the information is of such a character that a responsible authority has no difficulty in accepting it. If in any doubt, the authority will make further inquiries. I imagine that there will be no practical difficulty about it.

I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to go further and to accept the second part of the new Clause, because the period of three years which a licence is likely to cover is a long period, and there ought to have been some provision, at any rate, to remind the person concerned that he is under a very special obligation to notify the local authority if his health deteriorates. He can become a menace on the roads. Instances of this are only too frequent. However, on the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman gave, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.