HC Deb 23 April 1993 vol 223 cc619-40

'The following section shall be inserted in the Road Traffic Act after section 125B— 125C(1) A person who holds a current driving licence which is limited other than by virtue of a notice served under section 92(5)(b) of this Act may apply to the Registrar under the provisions of section 125 of this Act, for his name to be entered in the register for the purpose of giving instruction in the driving of motor cars of a class covered by his limited driving licence.".'.—[Mr. Peter Bottomley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.42 am
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time.

The mobility roadshow will be held on 11, 12 and 13 June at the Transport Research Laboratory at Crowthorne in Berkshire. Those who have any experience of the previous five mobility roadshows will be able to testify to the remarkable range of adaptations that have already been made to vehicles to allow those who need to overcome a disability to be mobile. When we consider new clause 4, which probes whether there should be a right of appeal against an adverse decision by an assessor, we ought to bear in mind that the mobility roadshow is, in effect, a showcase for the work that goes on at Crowthorne and in other mobility centres throughout the United Kingdom.

I suspect that later in the debate we shall get to know MAVIS better. MAVIS is the Mobility Advice and Vehicle Information Service. I think that we may hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), who has promoted his Bill with great distinction, and, perhaps, from the Minister for Roads and Traffic, who has done so much to carry forward the work to overcome mobility handicaps, that MAVIS is where some of the assessment is likely to take place.

The purpose of the mobility roadshow is to give people with disabilities the chance to test drive a wide range of models of standard production cars and vans and to try out the latest range of hand controls, as well as the wheelchairs, pavement vehicles, modifications for swivel seats and a variety of mobility-related adaptations and equipment—so important to the purpose of the Bill—which are likely to be part of the adaptations that would then qualify somebody, under the terms of the Bill, to gain employment as a driving instructor.

If the media could give advance publicity to a roadshow, the growing number of people who would benefit from going there would know about it. Perhaps I may be permitted, in the gaps between the paving stones of my speech, to say that if anyone is interested in knowing more about where to stay in the area, they can telephone 0344-770463, or 071-276-5252 for more details, which could be sent to them.

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)

My hon. Friend mentioned that there are other centres. Can he tell us where they are?

9.45 am
Mr. Bottomley

If I went into that matter in too much detail, I should probably trespass on the generosity of the Chair. A guide, published by the Department of Transport and the Transport Research Laboratory, is available from MAVIS and the disability unit of the Department of Transport. It details the services in the United Kingdom that offer advice, information and assessment to disabled and elderly motorists. The guide covers not just the independent centres, ranging all the way from the Northern Ireland Council for Disability in Belfast through to MAVIS in Crowthorne, but centres in Banstead, Avon, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cornwall, Derbyshire, Lancashire, Shropshire, Surrey, Tyne and Wear, Wales and Scotland.

That is important, for those who want to follow a career as driving instructors will want to know where they can obtain access to assessment, whether there are grounds for appeal against the assessment, and in what way that appeal should be made. The booklet does not cover just the independent sector. It also covers commercial establishments. That may be important to those who want their vehicles to be adapted for their use either as drivers or as passengers, for not everyone will be able to drive an adapted vehicle. Nevertheless, they want mobility.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who has done so much to promote the Conservative view on disability problems, not just mobility problems, has asked a sensible question. I hope that those who have the same question in mind will apply to the disability unit for the information to which he referred.

The mobility roadshow is central to my proposed new clause. People need the chance to find out whether they can drive. They need to be able to do so off public roads, in an area where there is no question of causing danger to others and where there is plenty of space so that the errors that most of us make when we learn to drive under the supervision and instruction, preferably, of a driving instructor, rather than just a friend or a member of the family, can be rectified. At the Transport Research Laboratory's test track, on its private road system, they can use, so long as they have a provisional or full driving licence, a large number of vehicles equipped with various adaptations. All drivers would be accompanied by one of the Department's driving examiners, or another experienced driver, who would be able to offer expert advice and answer queries. All cars are fitted with dual controls, so that even inexperienced or nervous drivers can have a go, in safety and with confidence.

At this point, I want to refer to the many people who give up driving too soon. They may have an exaggerated fear of their loss of ability, through old age or frailty, but particularly, for the purposes of today's debate, because they feel that some disability that has come upon them suddenly, or which has developed gradually, renders them unsafe on the roads. I recommend those drivers who have such fears to apply to MAVIS for information about where they can be assessed. That is a general point, and different from the one about those who want to become driving instructors.

The advice that I give informally—I should not want anyone to take my advice too seriously unless it is confirmed by others with more expertise—is that it is perfectly reasonable, for example, for me to continue to drive until my driving is as risky as it was when I passed my driving test at 17. I do not see why we should have a different standard for people who are maturity challenged, to describe the elderly in politically correct language, or why disabled people should abandon independent mobility when their driving is safer than those who are passing the driving test.

The House will want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter for the way in which he has promoted the Bill. It was a shame that there was no opportunity for a fuller debate on Second Reading because it came on after 1.30 pm on a Friday, which did not allow much time for debate and most hon. Members did not have an opportunity to serve on the Committee.

We clearly want a higher standard for driving instructors, and here, perhaps, my remarks are probably more appropriate to Third Reading. When I was at the Department of Transport I became aware, I think from Joe Hennessey, that some people were being disqualified from taking employment as driving instructors, even though they wanted only to instruct on automatic cars because that was all they were capable of driving. No one is suggesting that all disabilities can be overcome to enable someone to drive. No one is suggesting that all those who overcome disability, or those for whom the disability becomes irrelevant and who have licences, would want to become instructors and no one is suggesting that all are suitable.

As a result of the consultations, my hon. Friend has provided conditions that, in general, are fair, but what about those who have a grievance about the assessment? My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter might say—if he did not, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, who has done so much to reduce casualties and to promote the opportunity of driving, would say it—that there is no realistic appeal against the failure of a test, so why should it be different for a failure on assessment? The answer is that the assessment is a far more objective measurement that is capable of being subjected to appeal. It is rather like remarking an examination paper: it does not happen often, but it is always possible to try to re-examine what was said or done or, for someone who has failed an assessment, to be able to reproduce conditions and ask, "Is this fair and right?"

I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East and for Worcester (Mr. Luff) for new clause 4, which proposes that a person who is aggrieved by a decision of the assessor—

  1. (a) to refuse to grant an emergency control certificate, or
  2. (b) to revoke an emergency control certificate, or
  3. (c) relating to modifications which may be specified in the emergency control certificate, or
  4. (d) relating to the recommendation as to such period of time after which a further emergency control assessment should be undergone may by notice in writing appeal to the Secretary of State within the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which notice of the decision was given in accordance with this Part of the Act."
Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are important. I will not go on at length because the House will want to debate a number of issues in the Bill, but the idea of an emergency control certificate is an inspired one—it offers the kind of simplicity and practical approach of which St. George, if he were still around today and whose birthday we spend only a little time celebrating these days, would have approved. It goes to the heart of the problem. When a novice driver is under the supervision of an instructor, is the instructor capable of bringing the vehicle to a halt—not taking over the driving, but, in effect, disabling the vehicle? The notion of the certificate is a good and clear one.

Mr. Oliver Heald (Hertfordshire, North)

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great benefits of the emergency control certificate is that it enables people, as their condition perhaps worsens, to have further adaptations and modifications made to their vehicle, which are reflected in the certificate and thus enable them to continue to drive? That ties in with what my hon. Friend was saying about the roadshow and what is available under MAVIS. The strength of the certificate is that it is flexible but simple.

Mr. Bottomley

My hon. Friend is right, but he is tempting me to stray wider than the new clause. If people who can drive independently and, in effect, have a full licence have a condition, new or growing, that makes it likely that they will not be able to bring the vehicle to a halt in emergency conditions, they are under an obligation to notify the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Indeed, we are all subject to that obligation, regardless of whether we have a noticeable disability. I remind all those who are paying attention to our debate that not only driving instructors or those who wish to become instructors, but each of us, have an obligation not to drive when we are incapable of driving and, if we have a condition that is likely to be more than temporary, to notify the licensing centre of it so that, if necessary, our licence can be withdrawn and we can be referred for medical or driving assessment. That may not appear to be complicated, but it is effective as long as the message continues to get through to people.

The DVLA would decide whether an ordinary driver requires an emergency control certificate. It might want to discuss with the Department's medical advisers whether an emergency control certificate should be more widely available to people whose condition might in future fall into paragraph (d). Clearly, that paragraph could be widened. If I continue on those lines, I shall be going beyond whether qualified drivers should be able to appeal against an assessment that says that they cannot proceed to become a driving instructor.

Mr. Heald

I am sorry to trespass on my hon. Friend's good will, hut, as the proposed system is so flexible and someone can take another control assessment within six months, is there any great benefit in having an appeal, the effect of which would be to add another layer of bureaucracy and to require the Secretary of State to consider such issues and to second-guess the assessor? Would not it be better if aggrieved people took a second test, as they do under the driving test?

Mr. Bottomley

That is the point before the House. My hon. Friend has a reputation as one of the radical young Turks of the Tory party who wants to strip away the red tape and I suppose that his argument needs to be balanced against my idea of fairness. When the then Prime Minster called me in during the summer of 1990 and said that I was doing a frightfully good job in Northern Ireland "and, by the way, you are sacked", she reminded me that there is a lot of rough justice in government. If one spends a lot of time trying to enact legislation or make administrative decisions that are perfect for everybody, one does not get very far and the responsibilities of government are broader than that. When proposing legislation, we can say, "All right, there will be unfairness. Peter Bottomley can speak up for the aggrieved person, but my hon. Friend"—

Mr. Heald

The Member for Hertfordshire, North.

Mr. Bottomley

I tried not to identify my hon. Friend because it might embarrass him. The mood has now changed and we are all supposed to be soft, caring Tories like myself. If my hon. Friend wants to be identified with his own remarks, so be it, but I shall speak for those who feel aggrieved because they believe that they failed an assessment unfairly. My hon. Friend can say, "Just wait six months and avoid this extra layer of bureaucracy." I have never been too sure that one should regard the motion of an appeal as bureaucracy. If I were convicted unfairly or unjustly or, from the point of view of lawyers and, more important, against the law, I could appeal to a higher court two or three times. I am not sure that one should refer to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, the Court of Appeal or the High Court as "bureaucracy", but my hon. Friend is a lawyer and no doubt knows much more about it.

10 am

I must return to the decision that the House must take. Is it better for there to be no appeal against assessment, as there is no effective appeal against a test failure? I suspect that there is an appeal, but how does one recreate the necessary conditions? I am willing to be convinced, not that the new clause is wrong—it is clearly right—but that it should not be accepted on grounds of practice.

One could argue that it is unlikely that people would be wrongly failed and that the system is designed to let through as many people as possible, rather than to block as many as possible. One may argue that it will be obvious when someone has failed the test for an emergency control certificate by, for example, knocking down the cones on the test ground at Crowthorne. The situation may be similar to that involving alcohol testing for drivers.

During my service at the Department of Transport, well over 1 million people were tested for alcohol and not a single one complained to his Member of Parliament about the result. The people tested who had not taken any alcohol regarded themselves as potential victims; those whose tests were between zero and the legal limit wiped the perspiration from their forehead and said "Thank heavens"; and those who were above the legal limit knew that they had been caught bang to rights and had no grounds for complaint.

In this case, if the House is not minded to accept the eminently sensible new clause, I hope that, as part of the emergency control assessment, if someone has failed, the assessor will allow the candidate to try again, using the distance in which people should be able to stop a vehicle, and see whether he and the driving instructor candidate can agree why the candidate has been refused a certificate. Such a practical approach may be better than the legislative provision, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), in rather heavy language, called "another layer of bureaucracy".

Mr. Thurnham

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there are sufficient provisions for the assessor to make clear the reasons why someone is failed? I am a little uncertain about whether the Bill goes far enough in that respect. If people are to fail on account of a disability, it is important that they should know that, and should perhaps be able to discuss the matter further. That is an important part of the appeals procedure because someone could be failed time and again on the six months' basis without knowing why.

Mr. Bottomley

I should be interested to hear my hon. Friend answer his own question. I think that I am falling into the trap of exaggerating the possible problems. The national vice-chairman of the Disabled Drivers Association, Mr. Hennessey, is quoted as saying: It is many years since one of our members from Coventry was denied the opportunity to become a driving instructor and become gainfully employed, because she only had a licence to drive cars with automatic transmission. The 'Disabled Drivers Association' warmly welcomes this Bill which will remove the present discrimination against disabled drivers and enable those who wish to work as driving instructors to do so. As my hon. Friend knows, those comments were backed up by Bert Massey, the distinguished director of the Royal Society for Disability and Rehabilitation, who said: RADAR warmly welcomes this Bill, which if passed, will enable disabled drivers to become driving instructors. The Bill will affect a small number of disabled people, but removes a barrier to them becoming 'economically active' and assisting other disabled people to become 'independently mobile'. We very much hope the House will grant it a Second Reading. The Bill has received a Second Reading, but the two quotations remind us that, in the main, we are talking about people driving cars with automatic transmission.

We are talking about people using one foot for the accelerator and the brake, as I would if I were driving an automatic transmission car—or one hand if there were hand controls; I am not arguing that one necessarily needs feet, but I am taking the most general example. In those circumstances, there is no difficulty about the emergency control certificate. It could be argued that, by talking about foot control or hand control, I am exaggerating the problem. Even people represented by RADAR and the Disabled Drivers Association might tell me that I do not need to pursue the issue at great length and that the assessors are perfectly happy to explain to those who will not receive the certificate why they will not receive it, a point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East.

If I were to watch a demonstration, I suspect that I could find that the prospective driving instructor would accept the assessor's decision. If I get the opportunity to go to Crowthorne, an assessor might say, "This is how it happens. There is not going to be a problem." If my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter can convince me that that is so, I shall not push the new clause to a vote, but we should hear what he has to say. I suspect that other people will be worrying about whether the reassessment of the decision should have to wait for six months, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North, or should be a matter for appeal. I am making a relatively narrow point and am not suggesting reassessing the whole driving test.

Mr. Thurnham

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on his good fortune in winning the ballot for a second time. I have entered all the ballots available but got nowhere, either for private Members' Bills or for private Members' motions. I also congratulate him on his great work for the disabled. I believe that he has been a member of the all-party parliamentary disablement group for about 20 years, which shows the length of his commitment. He has also supported other groups, including the Conservative disability group, and I look forward to visiting his constituency a little later this year to meet some of his constituents and to learn more about his work.

In my early days in the House, my hon. Friend introduced the Corneal Tissue Act 1986. I was not aware of all the shenanigans that can sometimes accompany private Members' Bills. One hon. Member approached me and asked whether I would be present on Friday. He could not be here and there was a danger that his Bill would not proceed because of another Bill. He asked me whether I would kindly shout, "Object" when the eighth Bill on the Order Paper was called. His Bill was an important one dealing with child abuse. I thought that it would be a good thing to help him so I said that I was sure I could do that. It was not until he had left and began to make further inquiries that I discovered that the eighth Bill—if I remember the number correctly—was the Corneal Tissue Bill. Had I shouted "Object", I might have prevented it from, making progress. Fortunately, I became aware of the dangers into which I might have fallen. The other hon. Member, who had better remain nameless, had to remain in the queue. I forget what happened to his Bill, but I am delighted that the Corneal Tissue Act 1986 reached the statute book.

If hon. Members are lucky in the ballot, it is especially important that they choose a Bill that will reach the statute book rather than a Bill that is bound to be highly contentious and has only the remotest chance of being passed. In choosing the Road Traffic (Driving Instruction by Disabled Persons) Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has shown great wisdom in choosing a Bill which has good prospects of reaching the statute book and will be enormously helpful to many people.

I do not know how many people it is envisaged will become driving instructors under the Bill. We know that more than 100,000 people have taken advantage of the excellent motability scheme and have obtained cars through it. There may be a greater number of disabled driving instructors than has been imagined. By getting rid of a barrier here—regrettably, there are still barriers elsewhere for disabled people who seek employment—and by opening up an avenue, more people will come through.

I am a little concerned that there seem to be two classes of people under the Bill—ordinary driving instructors and registered disabled driving instructors. It may be possible to consider that aspect further. The appeals procedure is important because people should be left in no doubt if there is a difficulty.

I was fortunate in being a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. However, the Committee clashed with the Committee considering the Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill. My ability to attend the Committee considering this Bill was limited because I was selected to be a member of both Committees. I am pleased that the Bill made such rapid progress and that we can give it further consideration today.

I have not had the opportunity to visit the Mobility Advice and Vehicle Information Service at Crowthorne in Berkshire, but I hope that I may have a future opportunity to do so. I am impressed by the reports about it. I hope that facilities can be made available to people with disabilities in as many parts of the country as possible so that they can take advantage of the expertise held by the Department of Transport in that sector.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) was concerned with the centre when he was a Minister at the Department of Transport and I pay tribute to his work at the Department. The encouraging figures for road accidents are a great tribute to his work and to the work of other Ministers, including my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic. Great credit is due to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham for his work on this issue and for his work on drink-driving. He showed great common sense in charting the way forward. The figures prove the wisdom of my hon. Friend's approach when he was at the Department of Transport.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

I certainly do not mind my hon. Friend continuing to speak about me in that way. It is worth remembering that I was only a paragraph in a chapter because Barbara Castle introduced the breath alyser in 1967. What worked in drink-driving was sticking to things that mattered. The same applies to disability. Tribute should be paid to those who carried forward the United Kingdom effort after the international year of disabled people. The Department of Transport set up a disability unit and consulted the Sir Peter Baldwin committee—the disabled persons transport advisory committee—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter served with great distinction, together with Lewis Carter-Jones. That provided the drive and combined the expertise. All that Ministers have to do is to turn up when asked and say the things that have been put in their hands, and that Parliament and Government care about these matters.

Mr. Thurnham

My hon. Friend is being very modest about the part that he played. Even if that was the extent of what he had to do, he did it extraordinarily well. I am pleased hat he and I have been able to put our names to the new clause which deals with appeals in relation to the emergency control certificate, which is a key provision.

I was in a sense fortunate when I learnt to drive because it was at the time of the Suez crisis. All the driving instructors were taken away to issue petrol coupons and we were allowed to drive on our own. That was in the days before MOT certificates so not every car was as roadworthy as they are these days. There may have been times when I would have had difficulty in achieving an emergency control certificate because of the vehicles I was driving. I have no doubt that they would all be worth a fortune now if they were still on the roads. Perhaps they were consigned to the scrap heap long ago. The MOT certificate has ensured that every car on the roads is in far better condition.

In Japan, the MOT certificate is so tough to obtain that after six years, cars have to have their whole braking system replaced. The result is that Japan exports most cars that are more than six years old to China and to other countries where people are not so worried about braking systems. The Japanese motor industry is able to achieve great output and turnover because of the MOT certificate. My hon. Friend the Minister may like to bear that in mind, although it might not be the most popular measure with people who own older cars.

10.15 am

The new clause would allow people to appeal if they are turned down. We do not have enough opportunities for appeals. I do not know whether the citizens charter comes into this. Bureaucracy is sometimes able to make its decisions without making clear why those decisions have been made and without allowing any process of appeal.

I can understand that if a disabled driver is turned down again and again and has to wait six months before he can apply again, he wants to be given sufficient reason. When my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter comments on the new clause, he may be able to clarify the extent to which the assessors will be responsible for telling people why they have failed. If they have no duty to make the reasons clear, there could be great frustration. There might then be a need for an appeal procedure. People with disabilities can find that their lives are frustrated if barriers and difficulties are placed in their way. The purpose and attraction of the Bill are that it removes barriers. However, there is a hurdle here over which disabled drivers must get. I should like to think that the Bill will help people to get over the hurdle and that any difficulties will be made clear to them.

Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton)

It is proposed that the person who is appealing will have 28 days in which to do so, beginning with the day on which the notice of the decision is given. The new clause is fairly vague on this point. The person who has declined to grant the emergency control certificate or who has revoked it will simply give notice in writing to that person of his decision and will include the reasons for it.

Is there a danger that the 28 days are not enough? Someone may have written a letter advising the person of the decision. A secretary may have sat on the letter for two or three days. The date on the letter may say the 21st, but it may not have been posted until the 28th. There may then be a weekend or a public holiday. The decision can affect the entire livelihood of an individual who may find that he has less than three weeks in which to appeal. He will need to take legal advice. If, in a few years' time, the provision is not uppermost in people's minds, it may take quite a lot of digging through law books to find out what a person's rights are. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) consider that 28 days is sufficient for an appeal which may dramatically affect the life of a disabled person?

Mr. Thurnham

My hon. Friend is right to point out that there can be practical difficulties. People may be away from their home address so the 28 days could become quite tight. Not every disabled person can get the guidance and advice that he needs. That could mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has pointed out, that there is a danger of exceeding that period. Some period has to be stipulated, but we should perhaps consider extending it a little further. The issue may be resolved today, or it may be considered further when the Bill, as I very much hope it will, goes to the other place.

One of the best features of the upper House is that its Members come to debates on disability issues with considerable experience. No doubt some of their Lordships will be able to bring special expertise to bear on the question of how long the time should be and whether a 28-day timetable is tighter than is justified. The period could be anything up to six months, when a new assessment could take place anyway. I hope that that point can be considered further, either today or in the other place.

I welcome the measures that the Government have taken to help disabled drivers. The motability scheme has been enormously successful, and I understand that the motability fleet is the largest of its kind in Europe. I praise those in my constituency, including Mr. Harry Bowers of Kirkby Central Motors, who have done much to help disabled people to come to terms with their disability and to open up for themselves a whole new vista of mobility. If they can then develop that into a job by becoming driving instructors, so much the better. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter will be surprised by the success that his Bill will have when it reaches the statute book and people can take advantage of its provisions to make an economic contribution to our national life as well as enhancing their own lives. That is very much to my hon. Friend's credit and I wish him well with the Bill.

Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester)

Let me preface my remarks by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) for the skilful way in which he has piloted the Bill through the House so far and congratulating him on his excellent work for the disabled, some of which I have had the pleasure to witness during a number of debates in this place.

The new clause that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) seeks to insert into the Bill is important. As my hon. Friend said, it deals with the single most ingenious concept in the Bill, which will enable its provisions to work satisfactorily. The emergency control certificate was defined precisely by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter on Second Reading: A disabled person who holds a valid emergency control certificate, and who has passed the necessary written and practical qualifying tests, just as non-disabled people have to qualify, will be able to have his or her name entered in the register of approved driving instructors. That would enable a disabled person to give paid driving instruction, although he or she would be restricted to cars with automatic transmission and with any other special modifications that might be specified in the emergency control certificate. Access to the emergency control certificate is therefore the essential requirement for a disabled person who wishes to become a driving instructor.

As my hon. Friend also remarked on Second Reading, that certificate is the central concept and the key safeguard relating to road safety. Safety is the principal concern that those who are not disabled may have about the possibility of disabled people being allowed to become driving instructors, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the effective way in which he has dealt with that concern.

My hon. Friend said on Second Reading: Although it is necessary for road safety purposes that additional requirements should be placed on disabled people, it should not act as a disincentive to disabled people who want to qualify as approved driving instructors".—[Official Report, 11 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 1162.] It is precisely because of my concern that there should be no such obstacle placed in the way of disabled people that I have added my name to the new clause. I am somewhat concerned that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham seemed to suggest that he intended to withdraw it. I welcome the clause, because I believe that the possibility of being unsuccessful in applying for an emergency control certificate or having an emergency control certificate revoked is rather different from failing one's driving test, for which one is given specific reasons. The possibility exists of discrimination, intentional or unintentional, against disabled people and the existence of a court of appeal in the form of the Secretary of State should commend itself to the House.

My one concern about the new clause is that perhaps it does not go far enough. I note that it imposes no duty on the Secretary of State in respect of the speed of his or her response to the appeal. Hon. Members who have the privilege of dealing with members of the Government on a variety of constituency issues know that one can wait a very long time for a reply, although I am happy to say that, in my experience, the Department of Transport replies speedily, and I congratulate those concerned. In the event of the House accepting the new clause, would it be possible for a subsequent amendment to be tabled in the other place to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to reply within a given period? I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham will address that point in due course.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

I imagine that it would be possible to ask Mr. Deputy Speaker whether he would accept a manuscript amendment, although I suspect that my hon. Friend has answered his own question. We need to know how many people are likely to be unsuccessful in obtaining an emergency control certificate. I may have been making a mountain out of a molehill, but I feel that we must look for justice on every occasion.

Mr. Luff

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and the whole Bill is about justice. It is precisely because the new clause seems to me to make the Bill still more just that I welcome it. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter plans to speak, but if he does, he may wish to address himself to my remarks.

Mr. Heald

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on introducing the Bill, which builds on the achievements of MAVIS, Crowthorne and the motability scheme, which have given many people a degree of independence that they had not enjoyed hitherto. A young constituent of mine returned from the Falklands conflict seriously injured. He was extremely depressed and anxious and had lost much of the morale and fortitude for which we had known him. Now that he has been to Crowthorne, used the MAVIS scheme and got his motor car through motability, he is a changed man. He is living an independent life and is much more like the person we all knew before he went to the Falklands. I therefore pay tribute to MAVIS and all its achievements.

Having achieved the degree of independence that a motor car can bring and having had the opportunity to learn to combat their disability, the many people like my constituent would be much better able to teach other disabled people to drive effectively than a fully able-bodied person who did not understand some of the difficulties.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

My hon. Friend has reminded me of a point that I intended to make. Someone qualified to be a driving instructor using only an automatic transmission car will not be confined to teaching only disabled people; he will be able to teach anyone who wants to qualify to drive by himself in an automatic transmission car. Rather than providing for specialist driving instructors, we seek to remove a barrier. I am sorry that I did not make that plain.

Mr. Heald

I have read the Bill and I entirely accept that point. It seems to me, however, that someone who has striven to overcome his disabilities can shed a new light on the business of instructing someone with similar disabilities in how to drive a vehicle. That important aspect commends the Bill to the House.

I must say that I was surprised to be described as a radical Turk. I have always been a Conservative, but I do not think that I have ever been radical. In considering a measure that deals with the attainment of a vocational qualification, it is important to examine the experience in other professions. I am ashamed to admit that I am a barrister because I know that we are not popular in this place. Usually, someone seeking to attain a professional qualification has no appeal. If he fails the examination, he is usually given the opportunity to have another go, but he cannot usually have the assessment reviewed by the Secretary of State in an attempt to second-guess the original assessor or examiner. If we are considering a vocational qualification, it is far better to grant the right to retake the examination or assessment than to review it.

Mr. Luff

The parallel with a professional qualification is a little forced. The new clause refers to the emergency control certificate which is an additional requirement over and above the vocational examination which a disabled person will have to take and for which no new appeal procedure is suggested.

10.30 am
Mr. Heald

I believe that we are talking about a vocational qualification. It is a qualification to allow someone to teach driving. It is not like a criminal case or an assessment for benefit. It is a vocational qualification. I believe that it would be wrong to have a system with an overlying appeal process which would create bureaucracy in the Department of Transport.

One of the great strengths of the Bill, which I agree should be passed and is achievable, can be found in the explanatory memorandum which, in relation to the Financial and public service manpower effects of the Bill states: The Bill will have no direct financial effects. The Bill will have no effects on public service manpower.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is coming close to suggesting that my new clause is out of order. I believe that my hon. Friend is almost making a direct criticism of the Chair. If my new clause affects public service manpower, would it have been called for debate? I am very worried about this.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)

The hon. Gentleman is aware that that is a matter for the Chair to decide.

Mr. Heald

I do not wish to stray out of order on this point and I know that I will not be allowed to do so.

It is important to consider that, although the new clause may not be out of order, a layer of bureaucracy would be created and inevitably that would mean that staff at the Department of Transport would have to deal with the appeals.

We do not know how many people would take the test. I believe that there are 100,000 disabled drivers, very few of whom may want to take the assessment. However, perhaps a far larger number than we imagine might decide to take it. When we consider that it is a logical career for a disabled person who has acquired the skills to want to pass on that knowledge, perhaps a substantial number of people might want to grasp this opportunity. If that is the case, many people in the Department of Transport will have to deal with the appeals.

If that is the case, we should consider whether that is an example of creating bureaucracy and red tape and the kind of things which we as Conservatives—even if we are not radical—do not normally support. I argue that it is unnecessary to create this new layer of bureaucracy because, with a national vocational qualification, we would not expect this kind of appeal.

We can tackle the issue with amendment No. 22. That amendment would reduce the period between which tests can occur to three months rather than six months. I would support that because if the three-month period were in operation, people—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying into another debate.

Mr. Heald

I will not go down that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Given that it is possible to take the test again relatively speedily, the position would be entirely different if we approved the new clause. Twenty-eight days' notice of appeal would probably mean that a decision would not be made for at least three months and possibly six months anyway. It might be better for an aggrieved person to take the test again and not go through the appeals procedure. Even on the grounds of efficiency and getting the job done for the aggrieved person, I believe that it is likely to be better to opt for a shorter period between tests.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (C'hesham and Amersham)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), whose championing of the causes of the disabled is unrivalled in this place. I am absolutely delighted that he came so high in the ballot and that he has introduced this Bill.

It is remarkable that we have continued for so long with this inequality in our system. The more that I consider the problems of disabled people, the more inequalities I find. Although we have come a long way, I believe that we still have a long way to go.

The fact that the Bill has all-party support is delightfully refreshing. Although hon. Members are thin on the ground in the Chamber today, the way in which the Bill was introduced and its passage through Committee are an endorsement of the will of the House and of the political will of all parties to support it.

Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

In view of what the hon. Lady has just said about all-party support for this Bill, will she join us in support of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was talked out on an earlier occasion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) must not go clown that road.

Mrs. Gillan

Thank you for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must admit that I have sympathy for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). She has championed her cause almost single-handedly on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Luff

Some Conservative Members believe that the Road Traffic (Driving Instruction by Disabled Persons) Bill is a better example of the kind of targeted employment legislation which can bring real benefit to disabled people than the more omnibus approach suggested in the Bill referred to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley).

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are discussing the Road Traffic (Driving Instruction by Disabled Persons) Bill and new clause 4 and no other Bills.

Mrs. Gillan

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff). The Bill reflects a practical way of approaching some of the problems of disabled people.

I contrast this Bill and the way in which the House can be seen to be behaving at its best with some of the scenes over the past few weeks and months, when the House has not sent the right message to the rest of the country and when it was seen to be behaving at its worst. It is a pleasure to be here on an occasion on which the House is perceived to be performing its duty towards the people of the country.

It is the role of the House to look after the small sections of the population that are often left behind and forgotten when we are introducing legislation. We must never forget that we should examine our citizens and society closely and strive continually to help the small groups of people who are perhaps disadvantaged unfairly or left out when we are legislating for the country as a whole. In a ten-minute Bill next week, I will try to redress the balance for a small section of our population—parents who adopt children—who I believe to be disadvantaged.

The Bill will be welcomed throughout the country and when my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that the time scale will become apparent and that we will know when we can expect the first disabled driving instructor to be operating in this country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady is making a Third Reading speech. She should return to the new clause.

Mrs. Gillan

I will defer to your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

New clause 4 was ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). I am pleased that he has introduced the possibility of an appeal. After all, in the assessment of a disabled person seeking to practise as a driving instructor, an important medical element may demand a second opinion. It will be subjective. Therefore, for some elements of the assessment, two points of view will need to be brought to bear. During the passage of the Bill—perhaps when it is considered in the other place—I hope that we can ensure that disabled people who apply for the emergency control certificate will not be disadvantaged in any way compared with able-bodied drivers who are assessed during their period as driving instructors. If able-bodied driving instructors do not come up to standard, there is a period in which they can still instruct and then be reviewed. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) that perhaps 28 days is not long enough. When we introduce a level of bureaucracy, which must accompany this—

Mr. Duncan

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on the question of bureaucracy, which was mentioned a moment ago. It may be fallacious to suggest that an enormous layer of bureaucracy would be created by this measure. If there are, say, 200,000 registered disabled people in the United Kingdom, perhaps at the outset a maximum of something like 1,000 may wish to register under the scheme.

Once the system is up and running, in the years ahead, fewer people may apply for the emergency control certificate and we will find that only 20 or 30 a year need to invoke the appeals procedure. Even the least efficient of civil servants—increasingly, our civil servants are becoming more efficient—will be able to sustain the burden of a mere 20 or 30 appeals without great cost to the Exchequer—if, indeed, any at all.

Mrs. Gillan

I imagine that the number of appeals will be fairly small. When the Bill goes through the other place, I hope that we will carefully ensure that we do not disadvantage disabled people and create another barrier for them over that of able-bodied driving instructors.

I said earlier that the Bill will be welcomed throughout the country. It will certainly be welcomed by my disabled residents in Chesham and Amersham. We are opening new horizons for disabled people. I wish the Bill a speedy passage on to the statute book.

10.45 am
Sir John Hannam (Exeter)

This has been an excellent debate on the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and other hon. Friends. It has given us an opportunity to examine in some detail the emergency control certificate assessment system. A number of interesting points have been raised which I hope to deal with in my speech.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham for his remarks about the importance of the Mobility Advice and Vehicle Information Service—MAVIS, as my favourite girlfriend is now known—advice centre because it plays a crucial role in advising disabled drivers all over the country on what sort of vehicles they need and the necessary adaptations, generally giving them confidence to embark on driving their own vehicles and getting their own mobility.

I shall start with a few words about the way in which the assessment is carried out, because it will help in my later arguments for resisting the new clause. The assessment will take place at MAVIS using one of a fleet of cars. An extensive fleet of cars is available—I have photographs of the range provided and the different adaptations. The assessment can also be carried out in a vehicle supplied by the person undertaking it. The choice of vehicle used will depend entirely on how the specific vehicle has been adapted.

The assessment will be subjective and will assess a person's performance. The driving adviser will act as the pupil. When I went to Crowthorne I tried out several vehicles and went through the test procedure. I behaved as a disabled driver with the instructor—the assessor—sitting beside me. We then changed round and, pretending to be disabled and using the adaptations, he tested my ability to effect an emergency stop. Under the system, the driving adviser will act as the pupil and the disabled driver undertaking the assessment will take the role of the driving instructor. It will be a practical assessment in a moving vehicle around the test area at Crowthorne. The potential driving instructor will be expected to take control of the steering and braking at any time—in other words, in any emergency—at various stages of the test course.

Mr. John Whittingdale (Colchester, South and Maldon)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but the annunciator says that my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt) is speaking at present, rather than my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). I know that many hon. Members may wish to come and hear my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter. I apologise: the annunciator has now been changed and hon. Members may come to hear my hon. Friend's speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I note that it has now been changed.

Sir John Hannam

It is nice to have the right name on the annunciator. It always takes a little time for the right name to appear.

Potential driving instructors will be expected to demonstrate control of braking and acceleration for the purpose of tuition. They must show that they will be able to carry out all those measures when giving instruction, if they become approved driving instructors. They will need to show that they can correct minor errors and take positive action in a simulated emergency. In the demonstration of their actions, they must show the highest regard to and protection of life and property. The assessment will not look simply at the ability of potential driving instructors to give driving tuition: it will establish that there is a potential for that tuition to be carried out safely.

The main concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and other hon. Friends is that, if an emergency control certificate is refused by the assessor, the disabled driver should be given full reasons for that refusal. I am happy to reassure the House that subsection (9) in new section 133A on page 7 of the Bill clearly requires the assessor to give those reasons for refusing permission.

I appreciate the initial attraction behind the new clause, which is that the Bill should provide disabled persons who are aggrieved by a decision of the assessor with a statutory right of appeal against that decision. That point was considered carefully in the drafting of the Bill, and I hope that I can persuade my hon. Friend for Eltham, for whom I have the the highest regard through his work as a previous transport Minister, that the new clause is not necessary.

It must be right that disabled registered driving instructors and candidate instructors should be treated no differently from their non-disabled counterparts when it comes to rights of appeal. The existing legislation governing the registration of able-bodied driving instructors—the Road Traffic Act 1988—does not provide a statutory right of appeal against the decision of those responsible for assessing the ability of the instructors or the candidate instructors to give instruction. To take it a step further, nor does the existing legislation grant those who fail their ordinary driving test a statutory right of appeal against the decision of the driving examiner.

My Bill seeks to do no more than amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 to put disabled people on a par with those who are not disabled when it comes to registration as approved driving instructors—it is removing a barrier and a discrimination. It does not seek to confer on disabled people statutory rights in respect of giving paid driving instruction which are not available to able-bodied people. We are not creating positive discrimination—moving across the line and, therefore, favouring disabled people. We are simply establishing a level playing field.

There are good reasons why the existing legislation does not grant statutory rights of appeal against the decisions of driving examiners in the assessment of candidate and registered driving instructors. Those reasons also hold good for decisions of assessors of emergency control.

The first reason is that the circumstances giving rise to the decision of the assessor takes place in a moving vehicle. Actions and decisions are made as the person drives along undertaking the various checks and tests. Those circumstances can never be replicated to enable the person or body charged with determining an appeal to arrive at an informed and proper judgment of the decision of the assessor. The problem of replication makes it difficult, if not impossible, to see how an independent third party could arbitrate usefully on the assessment of emergency control. Assessment takes place in a moment under test circumstances.

Four decisions of the assessor of emergency control could aggrieve a potential driving instructor: first, a refusal to grant the control certificate; secondly, a decision to revoke an existing emergency control certificate; thirdly, the period specified in the certificate after the end of which the disabled person should undergo a further assessment—that point has been referred to in the debate; and fourthly, the required modifications to the vehicle, which may also be specified in the certificate.

The first two of those decisions—refusal to grant a certificate and revocation—will turn on the disabled person's ability to satisfy the assessor that he or she can safely exercise control of the vehicle, whether or not it has been modified, in a simulated emergency while giving instruction. Candidates must exercise control not merely in a driving test. They must convince the assessor that they can carry out an emergency control stop while giving instruction.

So any possible appeal against the assessor will be based on the disabled person's opinion that he or she exercised the necessary emergency control, against the assessor's judgment that the person did not exercise that control. Consequently, if the Bill provided a statutory right of appeal against the decision of the assessor, the arbitrator or appeals tribunal appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport would be tasked with deciding whether the assessor's judgment was right.

The independent third party would be expected to second-guess the assessor in respect of an assessment which could not be replicated and which was carried out when the third party was not present. So the arguments brought before any third party responsible for determining such an appeal would be reduced to the assessor maintaining that the disabled person did not exercise the required emergency control, and the disabled person claiming that he or she did.

The House can imagine—my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham pointed this out—the fruitless appeals which would be occasioned by statutory rights of appeal which turned on the professional assessor's judgment. Let us take the analogy of the ordinary driving test, which I suppose that most Members have taken and passed, if not at the first attempt. A driving examiner who failed a candidate might say, "You failed to make proper use of your mirrors and to make a safe controlled emergency stop." The candidate might say, "That was not the case." The examiner would say, "Oh, yes it was." The candidate would say, "No it was not. Furthermore, I shall exercise my statutory right of appeal against your decision to fail me."

Obviously such a dialogue would prove unsatisfactory and create a ridiculous scenario. It would not get the parties in dispute any further. The driving test that gave rise to the appeal could not be replicated. I am sure that the House would not want to create such a scenario in the judgment of emergency control ability. That is the unsatisfactory position which would almost certainly be created.

Mr. Heald

Does my hon. Friend agree that just about the only way of creating a successful appeal process would be something similar to the way in which medical appeals for benefits are treated? A medical appeal tribunal makes its assessment of the person's disability. With an emergency control assessment, an appeal panel would have to undertake a reassessment. Given that that is the only practical way, is it not just as good to allow the disabled person who wishes to become an instructor to take the assessment again, as the Act provides?

Sir John Hannam

My hon. Friend is correct. We have provided for the failed potential driving instructor to come back within a reasonably short period if he or she feels, as we often feel in similar circumstances, that the judgment was wrong. We must create in the Bill fair treatment for potential disabled driving instructors, but, at the same time, ensure that we do not land ourselves with a litigious process which would not work in the long term.

Disabled candidates may rehearse the same arguments over and over again. Many of us, in dealing with our constituents in other matters such as disability allowances, come up against people who rehearse the same case over the years. They feel aggrieved that they do not receive mobility allowance or whatever allowance they wish to claim. We perhaps can see clearly from the first instance that their entitlement is not necessarily established.

If the Bill granted a statutory right of appeal against the decision of the assessor of emergency control, it would be difficult for my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic to resist pressure to amend the existing legislation to grant the same rights to all people to appeal against the decisions of driving examiners in connection with the ordinary driving test, vocational driving tests, the approved driving instructor practical tests and the periodic check tests of registered instructors. I submit that there would be no end to the differences of opinion between examiner and candidate.

I am sure that, in discussing the matter today, the House does not wish to question the objectivity and professionalism of the Department of Transport driving examiners. Nor do we wish to question the integrity and objectivity of the driving advisers who would conduct the emergency control assessment. Anyone who goes to the centre will soon come to admire their integrity, expertise and professionalism and the humanitarian approach that they take to the job that they do.

To introduce the concept of a statutory right of appeal against what must be matters of professional opinion could lead to a proliferation of appeals tribunals or something similar. Given that the assessment could not be replicated, the tribunal could do no more than require that the test be taken again. That is what we have provided for in the Bill.

There is nothing in existing legislation or in the Bill to prevent a person from taking a test or assessment again. A statutory appeals procedure is not necessary to provide that opportunity. The Bill enables a disabled person to apply for reassessment, although six months must elapse before a further assessment may be undergone at that person's request.

The six-month period is intended to prevent time wasters who have no realistic chance of satisfying the emergency control assessor. Without the six-month minimum period between assessments, such time wasters might be encouraged to seek more frequent assessments, especially because there will be no fee for that assessment.

The most that the third party could conceivably do when faced with what amounted to differing opinions on emergency control ability would be to order a reassessment. We can agree that the third party could not reach a judgment and would have to order a reassessment. If the arbitrator ordered a reassessment, unless the assessor of emergency control had acted perversely—that is an unlikely event—the outcome of the reassessment ordered by the third party arbiter would almost certainly be the same as that which occasioned the appeal in the first instance.

I submit that the assessment of emergency control is essentially black and white. The disabled person will either be able or unable to exercise the necessary control. That will be perfectly obvious during the test. In most, if not all, cases, I am sure that the disabled person would be in no doubt about whether emergency control was demonstrated. If the car finishes up in the trees, he has not done the job and knows that he has not passed. It is as simple as that. So I am sure that the House agrees that disabled people are not being disadvantaged by the Bill's not containing a statutory right of appeal against the decision of an assessor to refuse to grant an emergency control certificate or in cases where the assessor revokes an existing certificate.

In practice, there will be few cases of doubt. The assessment that was the subject of appeal could not be replicated. The best that a statutory right of appeal could provide would be the power of a third party to order a reassessment. The Bill already provides for a disabled person to apply for reassessment and that person would already have received in the refusal full reasons why he had been refused his emergency control certificate.

We would not want to do anything under the Bill that offered the prospect of statutory rights of appeal against decisions of professional Government officials in respect of driving tests or in the execution of the practical aspects of the approved driving instructor examination. The sensible thing is for the aggrieved candidate to take the test again. That is what many hon. Members will have had to do before tearing up their L plates. That is what underlies the lack of a statutory right of appeal in the existing legislation governing driving tests and the driving instructor examination. That is why I omitted from the Bill a statutory right of appeal against the judgment of the assessor.

11 am

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) spoke about the medical aspects of the system. A disabled person might want to appeal against the period specified by the assessor in the emergency control certificate after the end of which that person should undergo a further assessment, which is set when there are doubts about a deterioration in that person's condition. Secondly, an appeal could be lodged on the modifications to the vehicle that the assessor considers necessary for the purpose of giving driving instruction. Essentially, those decisions are based on medical questions and the assessor's decision will be informed by the extent and nature of a person's physical disability.

In most cases, it is anticipated that disabled people applying for an emergency control assessment will have a stable condition, for example, paraplegia, where there is little or no likelihood of that condition worsening. In those cases, the assessor is unlikely to specify a period after which a further assessment should be undergone. Any worsening in such a person's physical condition, such as to render that person incapable of giving safe driving instruction, would, in those circumstances, be picked up as part of the periodic check testing that all registered driving instructors are required to undergo, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham pointed out.

The Bill places a duty on the disabled person, like his non-disabled counterpart, to notify the registrar of approved driving examiners if his physical condition worsens, unless that worsening is expected to be temporary. That duty is laid down under statute.

Any area of dispute about the period after which the assessor specifies that a further assessment should be undergone will arise in those cases where a person is suffering from a progressive illness, which leads to a reduction of physical capacity over time. It is possible to envisage granting a statutory right of appeal to a suitably qualified third party, but disputes about medical conditions are time consuming and costly to resolve. In practice, I do not belieive that granting a right of appeal to some sort of independent medical tribunal is necessary.

The assesor will be well versed in the nature of various physical disabilities, whether stable or otherwise, and will have access to medical advice. That advice can come from the candidate's doctor and the Department of Transport's medical adviser. It is difficult to believe that the introduction of a statutory and costly right of appeal to third-party medical opinion would add anything constructive to that informative process.

If the disabled person considers that the assessor has reached the wrong conclusion about the nature or the pace of the progressive disability, it is open to him to produce medical advice to counter the assessor's conclusion. The assessor can then refer that advice to the Department of Transport's medical adviser. There will be a few cases where there is a marked difference of opinion, but I believe that the matter will be best resolved between the disabled person, advised by his medical practitioner, and the Department's medical adviser, without a statutory right of appeal to a medical third party. I hope that the House will agree with me that a statutory right of appeal against decisions of the assessor, for the purposes of the emergency control certificate, relating to the rate of progressive illness would be inappropriate and unnecessary.

That leaves the last possible area of appeals—those made against the decision of the assessor on the modifications to the vehicle, as specified in the emergency control certificate. This is a specialist area and it should be left to the professionalism and expertise of the driving adviser of MAVIS who will conduct the assessment. In practice, I am sure that a disabled person who is determined to become a registered driving instructor would not reasonably object if the assessor specified a modification that the disabled person was not persuaded was wholly ncessary.

Although I do not support the concept of statutory rights of appeal, disabled registered driving instructors will enjoy the same statutory rights of appeal against decisions of the registrar. The existing legislation provides that statutory right against decisions such as the removal of a person's name from the register. Those appeals are considered by appeals tribunals which make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Transport. My Bill, which deals solely with the emergency control certificate, does not change that process.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, with his wide knowledge as a former transport Minister, will accept my arguments and will feel able to withdraw his new clause. I assure the House that full consideration will be given in another place to the other points raised during the debate. I would therefore ask the House not to accept the new clause.

Ms Walley

I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on his Bill, which has been subject of considerable consultation throughout all its stages.

The hon. Gentleman has given us a thorough and comprehensive resume of the existing safeguards in the Bill. The Opposition do not want to be classified as time wasters, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, so I shall merely say that we have every confidence in the reply that the hon. Gentleman gave to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley).

Mr. Peter Bottomley

With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.

We have already agreed that we will all meet MAVIS at Crowthorne in June at the mobility road show.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) has shown today, as she did on Second Reading, that she has gone into the details of the Bill. I know that she supports the Bill and we appreciate that the close work she has done with Lord Ashley is in the interests of people who are overcoming disability.

Although my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) said that he could not support new clause 4, I believe that some of his remarks lend support to an amendment that I hope will be discussed later today.

I am in a slight dilemma. If the estimate of the number of cases of appeal against refusal of the emergency control certificate came to 20, I calculate that my hon. Friend the Minister would be able to handle them personally at the rate of less than one a fortnight. I do not believe that anyone should have any doubt that that is not a matter of bureaucracy, but political judgment. My hon. Friend is well capable of making such a decision. If my hon. Friend is able to go to Crowthorne once a fortnight or once a month and went to one of the other mobility advice centres on the alternate fortnights, many would be persuaded to join him there, especially the media, who have done so much to help disabled people understand that they can get out and about, That would lead to even more barrier jumping.

You were kind, Mr. Lofthouse, when you did not call me to order earlier and I believe that I have an apology to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) because I was guilty of a degree of political incorrectness. I am sorry I described him as I did, but it was meant as a term of praise and endearment. If he does not want to be called a radical whatever—[HON. MEMBERS: "Turk."] I shall call him a moderate Conservative with overwhelming arguments.

If I have exaggerated the scope of the problem, it was well worth raising that apprehension now, rather than after the Bill has proceeded through the House. The most important thing to remember is that the assessors are doing all that they can to try to help people gain the capability, if they do not have it already, to execute an emergency controlled stop of a vehicle under their control. Most people will clearly be able to obtain a certificate without difficulty or they will not obtain one at all. I suspect that the numbers of people on the margins will be small as this is a bi-polar issue—either people are capable or, quite clearly, they are not. The number of occasions when there will be doubt will be small.

I disregard some of the arguments that have been advanced as I do not think that they carry weight. One argument that is valid involves someone at the margin who wants to become a professional driving instructor, when there should be no doubt. In those circumstances, a wait of six months—or whatever period is considered suitable subject to future amendments—is reasonable. Although my heart is with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), my head is with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North. The arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter were overwhelming. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to