REGISTRATION OF DISABLED PERSON AS DRIVING INSTRUCTORS (Hansard, 23 April 1993)

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'as that of a disabled instructor'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, line 18, leave out 'with an indication that he is a disabled person'.

§ Mr. Bottomley
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said, the House wants to make progress. Therefore, if I say just a few words now, it may not be necessary to deal with all the other amendments that have been selected for debate.
Amendment No. 1 picks up a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir. J. Hannam) made in an earlier speech. We want to treat people the same, overcome barriers and get rid of discrimination. The new section 125A which, under clause 1, is to be inserted in the Road Traffic Act 1988 contains, in subsection (1)(c), the words may apply to the Registrar for his name to be entered in the register as that of a disabled instructor. The words as that of a disabled instructor worry me. If we have overcome the barrier, I do not know why the label should be left intact. That is the question that I must put to my hon. Friend. It is possible that the House will not press the issue to a Division. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the amendment, but if he cannot do so I hope that he will reconsider it before the Bill goes to another place.
11.45 am
On file there will be information about what has happened, but once someone reaches the stage of having qualified as a trainee driving instructor, or as a driving instructor, without qualification, why should we make it a matter of law that that person's name should be entered on the register as that of a disabled instructor"? I have tried to anticipate the answer, but I cannot think of one that is generally acceptable, so that it is a worry. If it were possible for my hon. Friend or the Minister to say whether a fee is likely to be paid for entering the name, whether or not the amendment is accepted, we should know a little more about the response to the debate, if we have one, on amendment No. 2, which deals with the question of a fee, if any.
Perhaps I may trespass on my hon. Friend's patience by looking forward to amendment No. 11, which would change the period of four years to two years and—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for many years. I am sure that he realises that he is dealing with amendments unrelated to those under consideration at present. I hope that he will stick to the ones that we are dealing with.

§ Mr. Bottomley
I shall say not another word about them, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would just point out that before you took the Chair there were objections from an hon. Member who thought that we intended to delay the proceedings. I want to put it on record that we are trying 649 to accelerate the proceedings as fast as we possibly can. I shall not add another word to what I have already said, apart from asking why it is not possible to have the European Community and Commonwealth exemption, which is the subject of amendment No. 12.

§ Sir John Hannam
This group of amendments can be divided into two—amendments Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 6, tabled in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), and amendments Nos. 15 and 17, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson).
The first group seeks to remove the identification of disabled driving instructors from the register. Although it may appear to be a sensible move, I believe that I can show that it would be unwise to do so. In order to assist those who wish to consult the register of approved driving instructors, separate identification is considered to be necessary so that people who consult the register in order to get driving instruction—possibly from a disabled driving instructor, because they fall into that category—can identify those disabled driving instructors who are authorised to give paid instruction in automatic vehicles only.
If a disabled driving instructor were not identified in the register as such, an able-bodied person who wished to obtain a full driving licence covering cars fitted with manual gear boxes would have his time wasted by approaching that registered instructor. As a result of the Bill, many driving instruction schools will have on their staff disabled driving instructors. Therefore, someone approaching a school to seek driving instruction could find, when it came to the appointment, that the instructor was disabled and therefore able to give driving instruction only in cars fitted with automatic transmission.
Separate identification would also be helpful for disabled people who want to be taught to drive an automatic vehicle by a disabled instructor. We have to accept that the area of activity of disabled driving instructor will certainly concentrate largely on other disabled drivers—people who become disabled through accidents and wish to become licensed drivers of vehicles. In many cases, they will seek out someone with the expertise to understand their disabilities and needs. Therefore, identification is part of the requirement.

§ Mr. Thurnham
I am not entirely happy about this aspect of the Bill. I cannot understand why my hon. Friend's points could not be covered just by saying that the driving instructor will give instruction only in cars fitted with automatic gear boxes. I imagine that in a country such as America there are more driving instructors who give instruction only in cars with automatic gear boxes than there are driving instructors who give instruction in any car. I am not entirely happy with the idea that we should discriminate between driving instructors who are able-bodied and those who are not, for the purpose of indicating whether they can use a car fitted with an automatic gear box.

§ Sir John Hannam
I accept that point, which must be considered carefully, but we must also carefully consider the provision of necessary information to people seeking driving instruction.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
The House has a genuine difficulty, which it could spend much time debating. May I put this suggestion to my hon. Friend? Will he consult the chairman and members of the disabled persons advisory committee and their officials to see whether it is possible to have disabled people entered on the register not as "disabled instructor", but with whatever qualification may be appropriate? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham suggested earlier, it might be sensible to consider the point in another place.

§ Sir John Hannam
I should like to pursue my arguments to their conclusion because, to a certain extent, they answer the nature of the concerns that are being expressed about the definition of the entry on the register.
I have dealt with the need to identify the disabled driving instructor on the register so that an able-bodied person can ensure that he does not receive instruction from a disabled instructor in an automatic vehicle and so that disabled people can ensure that they are taught by a disabled instructor in an automatic vehicle.
Separate identification is necessary for enforcement purposes. The Driving Standards Agency enforces the approved driving instructors scheme to ensure, among other things, that people who are getting paid for instruction are registered to do so—that they have valid certificates of registration. A disabled driving instructor, unlike his able-bodied counterpart, will be limited to giving paid instruction in a vehicle of a class covered by his limited driving licence, with the additional modifications for the purpose that the assessor may specify in the certificate. It will be unlawful for a disabled person to give instruction either in a vehicle of a class not covered by his limited driving licence or in a vehicle of a class covered by his limited driving licence but without the necessary modifications as laid down in the emergency control certificate.
To ensure proper and effective enforcement of the conditions that apply to disabled registered driving instructors, it is essential that the register separately identifies disabled instructors. The Bill does not propose the creation of a separate register for disabled driving instructors. The separate identification would be minimal—literally, the letter "R" for restricted or "D" for disabled at the end of the registration number, with an alteration to the certificate of registration to show any modification that the assessor has specified in the control certificate.

§ Mr. Heald
Is not one of the problems that the way in which the person is entered on the register is the trigger for a host of provisions in the Bill which protect the public on grounds of safety? I am looking at proposed new section 125B(6), which says: The entry of a person's name in the register as that of a disabled instructor shall be subject to the condition", which it then lists, about submitting to further assessments and so on. Without that entry on the register in a different category, there would be no trigger for many of the safety provisions. It is difficult to see, from a drafting point of view, how the mechanism could be triggered in another way. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has any suggestions about that, but it is difficult to see how it could be drafted effectively in any other way.

§ Sir John Hannam
This is the crux of the argument. It is a balanced decision. Obviously one does not want the 651 Bill to be discriminatory, but nor do we want the register to be misleading. The register, and the information on it, could trigger subsequent actions. I should very much like to consider this point again when the Bill is in the other place. At the moment, I should be inclined to advise the House not to accept the amendments and I hope that they will be withdrawn to enable us to reconsider them.
Interestingly, amendments Nos. 15 and 17, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, work the other way, as they would require a description of actual disabilities, which is a problem area. The argument advanced in the amendments is slightly unclear, but my hon. Friend seems to think that including the nature of the disability might be helpful. The registrar of approved driving instructors would have no reason to record the nature of the physicial disability in the register. The nature of the disability is not relevant. All that the registrar needs to know is that the person has a current emergency control certificate and, as long as the disabled person possesses that certificate, that he or she has passsed the qualifying examination as a driving instructor and is a fit and proper person. As long as those requirements are satisfied, that person's name will be entered on the register as a disabled driving instructor.
The entry on the register showing that a person is disabled will be confined to one letter after his or her registration number, so anyone consulting the register would know that a person is disabled and cannot instruct in cars fitted with manual transmission. Separate identification, but not the nature of the disability, is relevant for enforcement purposes, but the nature of a person's disability is relevant to the emergency control certificate. For example, the person may have a progressive illness that leads to increasing loss of physical capacity. In those circumstances, the certificate may specify, as we have already discussed, a period after which the registrar may order the person concerned to undergo further assessment. The currency of the emergency control certificate is relevant to the purposes of the register and not the nature of the disability. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the amendments.

§ Mr. Peter Atkinson
My hon. Friend's remarks clarified the matter, for which I am grateful. I had not understood the position from his earlier remarks, but I do now and will not push the amendments.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I do not support the amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). I fear that he is slightly confused in suggesting that a denoting mark beside a disabled driver's name is a slur on him or her or is some kind of discrimination. It denotes a statement of fact and it is important that people know from the register who is able-bodied and who is disabled. These provisions have a positive element because a disabled person seeking a disabled driver to instruct him could find an instructor who understands his problems and could provide a car adapted for his needs.
There has been a slight misunderstanding about the letter identifying a disabled instructor. It does not make him appear less qualified, but it helps those who would particularly appreciate instruction from such a person.

§ Mr. Thurnham
I take it that we are speaking to all these amendments, but I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) might have had a little more to say. He spoke only to amendment No. 1. 652 I am still a little unhappy about the separate register of disabled instructors because there are few other spheres of life in which a disabled person is shown as such on a register, unless he chooses so to appear. People can choose to be registered disabled for employment purposes, but, in this case, as I understand it, it is not a matter of choice. If someone is disabled, he will end up on the register of disabled driving instructors whether he likes it or not.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
Does my hon. Friend agree that a person's physical capability is enormously important if he is a driving instructor? We are not talking about a disabled clerk, secretary or bank manager. In this case, disability is relevant.

§ Mr. Thurnham
Many issues are relevant, including a person's abilities in other respects. I feel instinctively unhappy about the fact that, whether a person likes it or not, he is to be entered on the register. It is a valuable feature of our society that, in other spheres, people do not have to register as disabled if they do not want to. There has been a great debate about employers meeting quotas in employing registered disabled people. Often employers employ people who are disabled but who do not want to be registered as such. It would be wrong for the House to force people to be registered as disabled for employment purposes.

§ The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle)
I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) said. It is a matter of practicality rather than discrimination. First, one wants to be helpful to people who are looking for driving instruction. If a disabled person wants to learn to drive, it would be helpful for him or her to be able to go through the list of driving instructors and seek out those who they can be confident will be able to teach with a manually controlled car. It is a helpful and practical measure for disabled people who want instruction.
Secondly, we must be aware of the problems of enforcement, an important issue stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter.

§ Mr. Thurnham
I am grateful to the Minister for putting it so well. Although it would be a valuable facility for disabled people to be able to choose a disabled instructor because they believe that that would be the best way of receiving instruction, I am worried that the Bill offers no element of choice. A person will appear on the list whether he likes it or not.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
I take the blame for that. The amendment proposes to leave out words, but I should have anticipated the need to include a qualification in the register. We are discussing what the qualification on the register should be. I suggest that it should be "restricted", because the driving instructor is to be restricted in the type of vehicles he can drive, not whom he can teach. It has nothing to do with disability. It is the consequence of overcoming the disability which requires a restriction on the vehicle to be driven. If the Chair will accept a manuscript amendment, I will change the original amendment. If the Chair will not, we shall have to take up time with a Division and require an amendment in another place to add the word "restricted" or, having aired the 653 issue, we shall have to rely on the good sense of my hon. Friend and those advising him to change the word "disabled" to "restricted".

§ Mr. Thurnham
That is it in a nutshell. I should be much happier if we were able to consider the matter in that way.

§ Sir John Hannam
I said that the letter to be considered would be either "D" or "R" for restricted. We can certainly reconsider the issue during the Bill's consideration in another place. It would be unwise to jump in and make a firm decision today.

§ Mr. Thurnham
I am happy to leave it at that. We have had a useful debate, and my hon. Friend's suggestion would leave everyone satisfied that they could examine a list of driving instructors and find those who are restricted for one reason or another without people being distinguished because of their disability. I should be happy to leave that to my hon. Friend and look forward to the Bill's passage through another place when the issue can be given every possible consideration.

§ Ms Walley
I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily, but the debate raises important issues. I endorse the suggestion that there is a valid reason for further discussions with the various disability organisations. The points made about not wishing to discriminate against disabled people are general and should be taken up right the way through the Department of Transport and perhaps by the Leader of the House.
I cannot let the debate end without making one observation. With the exception of the Minister for Roads and Traffic, every hon. Member who has spoken has talked of disabled driving instructors as "he", or male. [Interruption.] That will prove to be true if one reads Hansard. I should be heartened if the amendment acknowledged—

§ Mr. Heald
rose—

§ Ms Walley
I shall not give way until I have made the point. If we want to outlaw all types of discrimination, we should consider the way in which we use the word "he" in the Bill.
As I said, I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily. There are many important issues, but we do not wish to contribute to the labelling of or discrimination against any group of people.

§ Mr. Heald
rose—

§ Ms Walley
The hon. Gentleman may catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily.

§ Mr. Heald
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The word "he" is always used in parliamentary Acts to mean he and/or she under the Interpretation—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order for the Chair, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
On behalf of all the hon. Members who have expressed concern, may I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) that his response is very welcome. I am sure that we can find a way to remove any controversy or doubt while retaining the 654 benefits. On that understanding, I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I understand that a manuscript amendment may not be acceptable at such short notice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
We now come to amendments Nos. 2 and 9.

§ Mr. Bottomley
My hon. Friend the Minister may be able to deal with this matter in one sentence on Third Reading so I do not propose to move the amendments.