HC Deb 24 February 1969 vol 778 cc1217-20
Dr. Winstanley

I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 13, line 29, at end insert: Provided that in any conditions prescribed with reference to epilepsy ' sleep ' shall be defined so as to include a period of five minutes on awakening.

This Amendment is designed to get some information from the Minister about his intentions concerning regulations under this Clause and about what will or will not be possible under such regulations. My attention was drawn to the need for this Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who has had some correspondence with the Ministry about a constituent who is affected by this condition.

Clause 11(3) says: The licensing authority shall not… refuse to grant a licence… (6)… 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.

In the case of epilepsy the intention is that the Minister shall be advised by a panel of medical experts as to the circumstances in which the condition should be regarded as satisfactory from the point of view of granting a licence.

During the course of correspondence relating to this case with my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, the Parliamentary Secretary wrote in the following terms, which show something of the Department's intentions with regard to the regulations: Our intentions, which are based on broad recommendations by a panel of eminent medical consultants, are that to qualify for consideration for the grant of a driving licence a person must have been free from epileptic attack for three years, with or without treatment. The only exception envisaged is that of the person who has attacks only during sleep at night.

In general terms that is satisfactory and is a substantial improvement on the previous position. No medical man would wish to do anything to enable people to drive on the roads if they are not safe to drive. Certainly, where it is considered that there is no risk whatsoever of a person having a fit, it is reasonable for that person to have a licence, and this is provided for in what the hon. Gentleman said in his letter.

There is this category of persons who only have attacks during sleep, and it is right to assume, as the Minister does, that this kind of person can be regarded as safe as any other person—in so far as anybody is safe—to drive on the roads. But there is this unusual and small category who tend to suffer from petit mal—minor epilepsy which is a small transient attack without convulsions, which takes place only on awakening.

There are not many of these cases, but I have come across one or two professionally, and there is this particular case about whom my hon. Friend was in correspondence with the Department. This is a case where the person has never had an attack except on awakening, and it would seem reasonable to regard an attack which takes place on awakening as taking place in sleep. The letter continues: The only exception envisaged is that of the person who has attacks only during sleep at night.

This is the point of the Amendment. The letter adds: On this basis a person who has attacks on waking would have to be free from such attacks for three years, with or without treatment, if he is to be considered for the grant of a driving licence.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to reconsider this if the panel of eminent medical consultants recommends that this period should be regarded as sleep. The people with whom I am concerned do not have attacks during sleep, but immediately on wakening, not always but sometimes, and never at any other time. I hope that this could be provided for in the regulations.

Mr. Carmichael

I am most grateful to the hon. Member and to his hon. Friend for putting down the Amendment. There has been considerable interest in this much more civilised attitude to epilepsy and many hon. Members have received letters from their constituencies about it. The third paragraph of the letter sent to the hon. Member by my hon. Friend the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary perhaps states the case rather better: Clearly, when we get to the stage of drafting regulations—if Parliament approves our main legislative proposals—we shall need to ask the medical authorities for detailed advice, particularly in relation to borderline cases such as your constituent's, so that there will be no doubt where the line is drawn. Obviously, we will consult medical opinion, as we have done all along, and now that this specific type of petit mal has been brought forward medical opinion will be more aware of it than previously.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would not be desirable for the Minister's powers to make regulations to be fetered in the way suggested, in spit of all we want to do. I am sorry not to be more helpful, but I think that he will agree from the correspondence and from the discussions that our desire is to be as liberal as possible commensurate with the obligation to look after the safety both of epileptic and of other road users. The spirit is willing, and if medical opinion is such as to give us confidence in dealing with the type of illness which has been raised in the Amendment, we shall be pleased to meet do so.

Dr. Winstanley

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his assurance that he will take note of professional advice if the advice is in this form. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Carmichael

I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 14, line 25 leave out ' the period of seven days beginning ' and insert: ' the period of seven days beginning ' ' a period specified in the notice which shall not be less than seven nor more than thirty days and shall begin '.

Mr. Speaker

With this Amendment it will be convenient to consider Amendment No. 33, in page 14, line 25, leave out ' seven ' and insert ' thirty '.

Mr. Carmichael

In Committee, the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) suggested that in Clause 11, which substitutes the new Section 100, the period following the service of a notice of revocation of a driving licence after which revocation becomes effective should be extended from 7 days to a maximum of 30 days. The hon. Member felt that the seven-day limit might cause hardship where a licence-holder needed to have his vehicle adapted to enable him to continue to drive. We have looked at the provision in the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments and agree that there is room for flexibility——

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.