RELATED AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 23 April 1993)

§ Mr. Thurnham
I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 12, line 6, leave out 'four' and insert 'two'.
The amendment is designed to reduce the restrictiveness of the Bill. We have too many burdens on enterprise as it is. A new Domesday book has been produced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs who is responsible for deregulation. I have seen the book —I believe that a copy has been deposited in the Library —so I know that it is about 4 in thick. It lists all the burdens and restrictions on individuals and on enterprises. If people want to earn a living as a driving instructors, we should remove the restrictions as far as we can.
12.15 pm
Although the Bill is extraordinarily valuable and helpful in opening up an opportunity for people to earn a living as driving instructors when they have not been able to do so before, it contains various restrictions. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs has seen the Bill yet. No doubt it will be added to his Doomsday book of regulation. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) would give some consideration to an amendment which is designed to make life easier.
I do not know where the period of four years came from. I do not know whether the four-year period relates to provisions in existing legislation. Perhaps it could be relaxed somewhat to a period of two years, which would shorten the period in which someone is restricted. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter will consider that point so that we can amend the provision either now or in the other place. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who tabled the amendment with me, is now back in the Chamber. He may want to comment briefly on whether he is happy for the period to be reduced from four years to two years. Alternatively, there may be further discussion during the proceedings of the Bill.

§ Sir John Hannam
This is rather strange. We had an earlier debate because of concern that we might discriminate against disabled drivers through an insistence on a distinguishing letter after their entry in the register, yet the amendment would create a form of discrimination against disabled drivers. The arrangements in the Bill are the same as the normal arrangements for non-disabled drivers. When one is registered, one has four years of registration. After that, registration lapses unless one continues to apply. The amendment seeks to deprive disabled drivers of the four-year and to replace it by a period of two years, after which they have to reapply. It would be unreasonable to penalise disabled drivers in that way. The amendment reflects a misreading of the Bill and it would discriminate against disabled drivers. I ask that the amendment is not pursued.

§ Mr. Thurnham
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 12, line 51, at end insert— '(g) that he is disqualified in another Member State of the European Community or in a Commonwealth country.'. I should also be grateful to be told why a qualification obtained in another European Community country or in another Commonwealth country might equally not be acceptable.

§ Sir John Hannam
I am not at all clear why we should wish to amend the Bill as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) proposes. The schedule does no more than mirror the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which prevent someone who is disqualified from giving paid instruction or from holding a trainee licence. The existing legislation does not require such people to be removed from the register or to be barred from entry to it if they have been disqualified in a European Community or Commonwealth country. Nor does the existing legislation prevent an able-bodied person from obtaining or holding a trainee licence if that person is disqualified from driving in an EC or Commonwealth country.
Why should a disabled driving instructor or a trainee licence holder be subject to such constraints? How is the registrar to find out whether a disabled person has been disqualified in one of those countries? There is as yet no common driving licence record system covering all those countries, so there would be no possibility of implementing the amendment.
However, if it comes to the registrar's notice that a disabled person or an able-bodied person has been disqualified from driving in any country in the world, it is open to him to consider that fact in deciding whether the person is otherwise a fit and proper person for the purposes of registration as a driving instructor or as the holder of a trainee licence to instruct. The Bill and the current legislation do not specify what factors the registrar should take into account when determining whether a person is a fit and proper person. That is the best way in which to deal with the intent that lies behind the amendment.

§ Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)
The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) says that he does not know why Conservative Members want to amend his Bill. Let me 657 assure him absolutely and categorically that his Friends have no intention of amending the Bill, and will withdraw this amendment just as they withdrew the previous one.

§ Mr. Thurnham
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has not been here for the debate. Genuine points have been made and only a few minutes ago we agreed that the Bill should, indeed, be amended—if not by manuscript amendment immediately, in the other place.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)
That is not a matter for the Chair, although it may be a point of substance.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
I hope that it is, indeed, a point of order.

§ Mr. Bottomley
When an accusation is made against an hon. Member, there are ways of dealing with it—by rebuttal, for example. If the same rules applied in the House as might come into effect if the hon. Gentleman's Bill were passed, I could claim an equal right to reply. I could go to a statutory authority and take the hon. Gentleman to court, and I suspect that he would lose his licence to be a Member of Parliament and to make factually inaccurate points in the Chamber.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
I used to be a teacher, and I somehow feel that I have a class of small boys in front of me. Let us move on.

§ Mr. Soley
I am inclined to agree with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you for your protection. I merely wanted to give the hon. Member for Exeter the absolute assurance that there is no intention to amend the Bill. I knew that to be the case some time ago.

§ Mr. Luff
That is not true.

§ Mr. Soley
There is no intention to amend the Bill in this House and at this time. As the hon. Member for Exeter knows, his hon. Friends' purpose is to create problems for the Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill, and they will withdraw their amendment in due course.

§ Mr. Luff
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you clarify whether it is in order for an hon. Member who has not been present during the debate and who has not heard the arguments advanced by Conservative Members to cast totally false aspersions on those hon. Members' attitude towards the legislation in question?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order for the Chair. The occupant of the Chair is not responsible for the wisdom or otherwise of the words that are uttered, and that is a fortunate thing.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
I proposed to respond to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) in his reply to my amendment No. 12. The House will recall that we were interrupted when the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made the assertion that the amendments that had been tabled were not 658 serious. I did not press amendment No. 1, because, as any hon. Member who was present will have heard me say —the hon. Member for Hammersmith was not present and will not have heard me—I wanted to avoid the amount of time that a Division would take. It is the understanding of the House that my proposal will be accepted. I see every prospect of the word "disabled" being changed to the word "restricted", although—for reasons which we would not be given if we asked for them—my manuscript amendment was not acceptable to the occupant of the Chair.
What the hon. Member for Hammersmith came in to say was wrong. I regret that, and I suspect that, when the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will regret it. I shall not try to insist on an apology because it is better to deal with such matters by controversy rather than by using a sledgehammer to crack an hon. Member for Hammersmith.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has used the historic negative argument against amendment No. 12. It would be regrettable if the House and other member states of the European Community allowed the situation to continue whereby I might be disqualified for drink-driving in 11 of the 12 member states of the Community but could still come to Britain and carry on a trade as a driving instructor. That is undesirable. Perhaps it has arisen because of what the Road Traffic Act 1988 did or did not do. As I was the Minister responsible, I take responsibility for an unsatisfactory state of affairs. But there is no reason why, just because something was acceptable to me or to the House in 1988, it should remain acceptable in 1993, when we know more about such matters.
We can deal with the problem relatively simply by asking people for a declaration that they have not been disqualified in another European Community or Commonwealth country. I suspect that, like many other measures to overcome handicap, the emergency control certificate provisions will be copied, just as the orange badge and other provisions have been adopted, in other member states. If we ask people, "Have you been refused an emergency control certificate or been subject to court disqualification?", they will have to answer the questions honestly; after all, we rely on them to answer honestly the questions that are put to them when they first apply for a provisional licence or when they are over 70 and have to give a declaration of medical competence to drive.

§ Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
It may help my hon. Friend to know that the whole question of how restrictions on driving licences—endorsements—are treated as between common market countries is under consideration. We are trying to find a way in which to address the point that has been raised.

§ Mr. Bottomley
I accept the Minister's remarks and, in accordance with my earlier approach, I shall seek to withdraw the amendment rather than continuing with the debate that the subject clearly deserves. It might lead to a further eruption from the hon. Member for Hammersmith if we did what the House is supposed to do, which is to rectify what is wrong.

§ Mr. Thurnham
I do not know what has come over the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who conducted himself so well when he introduced his Bill and took it into Committee. Today, he has come here to disrupt proceedings on the Bill before us, and I am baffled why he should do that. If it results in anything, it will result 659 in there being less time for us to debate his Bill. He has not been here to hear our extremely useful debate. We have agreed—I use the word loosely, Madam Deputy Speaker—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It is all too loose. The hon. Gentleman must look at the amendment under consideration and address himself to that.

§ Mr. Thurnham
I am delighted to speak to amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which stand in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and for Worcester (Mr. Luff). Those amendments raise the important question of the relationship between Britain and the European Community, which we have debated at enormous length in recent months. I am not quite clear whether the qualification to which we have referred, which would enable disabled people to become driving instructors, will enable them to do that job throughout the European Community. The amendment should therefore be looked at in both lights: disqualification elsewhere should be a barrier to someone's carrying on here as though nothing had happened, but, equally, the opportunities that my hon. Friend's excellent Bill has provided for people to earn a livelihood in this country should automatically enable them also to earn their living in other member states.

§ Mr. Heald
One of my concerns about the amendment is that the whole question of road traffic control and the regulation of driving licences has traditionally been dealt with by this House and this Parliament, and not by Europe. I am concerned that the approach that is suggested runs contrary to the principle of subsidiarity because it allows matters within the competence of this House to be dealt with on a Europewide basis. It is wrong for a party that is fighting hard for subsidiarity to suggest that we should consider the matter on a Europewide basis.

§ Mr. Thurnham
rose—

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
rose—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We cannot have one intervention on another.

§ Mr. Thurnham
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was a little uncertain about how to cope with both points.
I should like to think that we would have an open situation. If someone is qualified to earn a living in a certain way in this country, that person may expect to be able to earn a living in the same way in other member states in the Community. If someone is a qualified driving instructor in another member state, one would hope that that person would be able to earn a living here.
Although we must consider the issue in terms of subsidiarity, I do not believe that it should be too great a problem. However, I am concerned about the fact that, in many areas, we are much more open than other countries in the Community. Someone can earn a living in this country as an electrician without having to be on a register of electricians. However, if that person goes to France or Germany, he may not be able to trade as an electrician unless he can enter his name on a register.
While an individual from another member state may come to this country and trade without restrictions, some restrictions apply in other member states. I hope that the whole matter can be opened and simplified.

§ Mr. Heald
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Thurnham
I wanted to cope with a point from my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley).

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
On the grounds of subsidiarity, it is ludicrous to require someone like my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) to take a French driving test before he takes his car through France and, the minute he reaches Italy, require him to take an Italian driving test. It must make sense to have common recognition. It is important to see how far we can remove barriers. If someone wants to teach in different European Community countries, it is as important to have common recognition of a qualification as it is to have common recognition of a disqualification.

§ Mr. Thurnham
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend's excellent point. If my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) responds to the debate, perhaps he will tell us the extent to which he feels that his initiative in this country will open up the situation throughout the Community as a whole.

§ Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
We have entered a wider field. It is sensible for the House to recognise that the Bill relates to existing legislation. It does not involve wider European issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said, it is sensible that there should be a degree of uniformity. That would be helpful and we are considering these matters in a wider context. However, the issues are not truly within the scope of the Bill.

§ Mr. Thurnham
I think that I have covered the points that I wanted to raise at this point and I am happy to leave the amendment as it is.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
I should like to force the amendment to a Division and take up another 20 minutes, but I will not do that. I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will stop provoking us from a sedentary position.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Is the hon. Gentleman seeking the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment?

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

§ Sir John Hannam
I beg to move, That the Bill be read the Third time.
I take this opportunity briefly to pay tribute to all those who have helped to make this Bill possible. We are talking about the removal of another piece of the wall of discrimination against disabled people. Although it will not benefit vast numbers of people, it is a very important step forward.
The barrier against the employment of disabled drivers has long frustrated people engaged in transport. In resolving that problem, I pay tribute to and welcome the support and assistance of my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic and the staff of the Department of Transport disability unit who have been instrumental in bringing the various threads together to produce this legislation.
I am also extremely grateful for the support of all members of the all-party disablement group. Over the 661 years, that group has secured a wide range of improvements for disabled people. The quiet, persistent determination of that all-party team has secured many of the steps forward that have been taken. I have no doubt that over the coming years, disabled driving instructors will join the staff of driving instruction schools across the country. I have no doubt that they will prove to be dedicated experts at their jobs, just as disabled workers have proved themselves to be in many other areas of employment.
As the Bill passes to another place, Lord Ashley, my co-chairman of the all-party group, will guide it expertly through its legislative stages there. Our debates this morning have examined in great detail many of the aspects of the Bill that we were unable to discuss on Second Reading due to the truncated debate that we had on that occasion and to the short Committee stage. The advice, opinions and constructive suggestions that have been given this morning through the various amendments that have been discussed will prove invaluable in ensuring that the Bill, when it finally goes through the other place, wil be in the exact form that we should all like to see. Therefore, I ask the House to approve the Third Reading.

§ Mr. Soley
I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on his good Bill. When we spoke about the matter some time ago, he knew that there was a danger that it could be talked out. I made it clear that I would not do anything of the sort because private Members' Bills need some protection. A review of the procedures of the House is long overdue to ensure that hon. Members who have a chance of getting Bills debated have the same sort of protection as Government Bills. We cannot talk out the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and we could not talk out the poll tax Bill. We should not be able to talk out Bills of this sort, and that is important.
At one stage, the hon. Gentleman seemed genuinely worried—I hate to see anyone suffering mental distress—that his hon. Friends would amend his Bill here. Clearly, they did not, and we knew that. I am grateful—

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the absence of the hon. Member for Hamersmith (Mr. Soley)—undoubtedly, he was briefing the press at the time on what he thought was going on here—we almost carried an amendment which, I suspect, would probably have been accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). The amendment not having been accepted—it was not possible to get it perfect—the hon. Member for Hammersmith should stop repeating things that he has already said which are wrong. They are matters of debate and matters of fact. When an hon. Member has been corrected, it would be a courtesy to the House not to repeat the same repetition on the same day. It would lead to a buzz on a radio programme, but not now.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order for the Chair, but it may well be a subject on which an hon. Member wishes to intervene. But let us be quite clear about the distinction between a point of order for the Chair and an hon. Member seeking to intervene to deal with what he thinks is an inaccuracy.

§ Mr. Soley
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. Obviously, I agree with your ruling. The point is that I simply said that amendments would be withdrawn—and they have been withdrawn. The issue is that when one seeks—

§ Mr. Luff
rose—

§ Mr. Soley
I will give way in a moment. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) should stop panicking. [Interruption.] I have no need to panic. I am the last hon. Member who needs to panic. When attempts are made to alter a Bill by other methods, that can be applied to my Bill as well. I could make manuscript amendments. Conservative Members have tabled one or two amendments to my Bill which are useful. If they had discussed the matter with me, we could have amended this Bill in precisely the same way. But it is a red herring.
The important point is that Bills such as that of the hon. Member for Exeter are welcome; they should be allowed through. Generally speaking, the Government should stay out of such matters. I am grateful to the Government Whips for telling me that debate on my Bill will start at about 12.30. That is always an indication of some involvement of Government Whips. Given the letters that I have—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
What does this have to do with the Third Reading of this Bill? I think that the answer is nothing at all.

§ Mr. Soley
I submit that it is marginally relevant. But I will leave it to one side and simply say that it is an advantage to be able to debate Bills properly. That is what we should do on all private Member's Bills, so that they have the considered and appropriate response, with genuine amendments of the sort that they may need from time to time. We should not bring the House into disrepute by using it in a way that people outside do not understand.

§ Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
I have great pleasure in speaking in the Third Reading debate on this excellent Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on the way in which he has taken it through the House. He answered debates with great clarity, conciseness and knowledge and he introduced a constructive Bill. We all know that over 20 years he has built up a substantial reputation for helping those with disabilities. During the passage of the Bill, he has reaffirmed in the most effective way his commitment to that excellent cause, so he deserves all our congratulations and our thanks.
I am delighted to confirm that the Government wholeheartedly support the Bill. I am glad that it has all-party support. We have had an excellent debate today. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) came in at a late stage with some rather carping remarks which must cast doubt on his judgment in other matters.
I thank the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate today. We all know the record of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) as a progressive and effective roads Minister. He is always too modest about his achievements. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has also worked long and effectively on the subject of disabilities. My hon. 663 Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Lull) gave detailed thought to many of the amendments and I thank him for that.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), who may not be a radical Turk, but who is certainly capable of clear and precise thinking. My hon. Friends the Members of Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) also contributed effectively to the debates, and I thank them for that.
I welcome the Bill because it not only provides employment for those who are disabled—those opportunities should increase as car technology develops—but increases the pool of driving instructors who are able and willing to teach other disabled people. It will give a significant boost to all efforts in that direction.
I am grateful for the interest shown in the Bill, as expressed by the amendments that were tabled. However, I am pleased that the Bill has not been amended today, although I take the point that we must examine the one particular area of specification. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter will do that and that some changes may take place.
In general, the Bill strikes the right balance. It removes an area of discrimination against disabled people. But also, most importantly, it does not threaten road safety interests, in which, of course, I am most interested. When the Bill is enacted, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be pleased to make the order to bring the legislation into effect and to make the necessary regulations under the legislation, such as those that prescribe the detailed nature of the emergency control assessment.
The emergency control assessment and the certificate that follows it are at the heart of the Bill because they provide the safety aspect and a statement that someone who is disabled is capable of keeping absolute control of the car. In that respect, I, too, pay my respects to the Mobility, Advice and Vehicle Information Service at Crowthorne, where much of the work and help will be undertaken.
We have heard about the mobility roadshow. The next one will take place later this summer. The work done at the roadshow helps to provide advice to disabled people every day of every week of the year. It has some standard production cars fitted with a wide range of equipment and adaptations. Someone who is disabled can go and find out the exact car to meet his or her wishes. Currently MAVIS assesses more than 400 people every year, so it is at the centre of what we seek to achieve. We are all grateful for its work and we congratulate it on its constructive efforts.
In conclusion, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter on his achievement. It is no less than we would expect from a man of his quality, but this is a happy day on which the Bill has every prospect of entering the statute book.

§ Ms Walley
There is no doubt that far more needs to be done to improve the civil rights of disabled people. Important advances need to be made. None the less, we have here a Bill which will bring about some real and much needed improvements for disabled people. It has been adequately steered through its proceedings so far.
664 I do not wish to detain the House further. We have other important business before us which desperately needs to be debated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has rightly pointed out.
We believe that the Bill offers significant improvements for disabled people who wish to become driving instructors and we look forward to its enactment. I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on the Bill.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) spoke for the House and I support what she said. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on his part in the long-term coalition of interests that has overcome apathy, ignorance and barriers.
The Bill will not affect many people, but it will set them free and give them a chance to earn a living at what they want to do. That chance is as important as providing such people with more opportunities to park a car, which is the merit of the orange badge scheme. The Bill has the same purpose as the register of the disabled has in providing employment opportunities; more needs to be done, however, to adapt that scheme or to draw more people's attention to it.
The Bill must be judged in the context of the work of the disabled persons transport advisory committee, which was driven forward by Department of Transport's disability unit. It is an alliance of people who are unwilling to tolerate injustice in terms of civil rights or the idea of passing by on the other side.
Mobility is a key part of people's lives. It needs to be a matter for legislation where appropriate and debates on the detail of the legislation can be as important as detailed debates on legislation in other areas.
There is a need for a coherent approach, because journeys on the railways, buses and on foot are just as important as those in cars. As long as the House has Members who can reflect the interests of their constituents and sometimes of their families, I suspect that we can do nearly as much as the other place in carrying forward changes. Some changes are possible because of technological improvements or cost reductions. All are known to MAVIS at Crowthorne.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Minister said and I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done. The fact that, every year, thousands of people will be able to get information and practical guidance on their capabilities from a central point to enable them to live a better life is a marvellous thing.
We have already mentioned the mobility roadshow and I believe that hon. Members should try to visit similar events in their own constituencies, because disabled drivers are often off on tours around the country. It is remarkable how those people, if given half a chance, take for granted what we take for granted. That is where the coherent approach shows its benefits.
More needs to be done, and the Bill is a step along the way. The House will be grateful to hon. Members of all parties for their help in bringing the Bill to the statute book.

§ Mr. Peter Atkinson
I, too, offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). The Bill will be warmly welcomed by many disabled people.
We have had a good debate and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter does not believe that we have been picking over the bones unnecessarily. The Bill has had a swift passage and the Report stage has given us a great opportunity to obtain further clarification on a number of matters of particular concern.
I am glad to note that the Opposition Back Benches are now filling up, because I am sure that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) felt rather lonely for most of the debate. I am grateful for her recent contributions because they showed a certain interest in the passage of the Bill, which was lacking before. We have not seen a Liberal Member today—no doubt they are all too busy at Newbury.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said about the Bill helping to enlarge the freedom of disabled people, which is most important. To enlarge the freedom of a vulnerable section of society makes the Bill worth while, unlike the Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill, which we are about to debate, which does just the opposite and is designed to censor the British press.

§ Mr. Luff
Despite the provocation of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) I shall restrict my remarks in the interests of making progress with his Bill as well as the one that we are debating.
There are three reasons for welcoming the Bill. First, it takes a pragmatic approach to the problems of disabled people. Secondly, it will enhance the mobility of disabled people who otherwise might not take driving instruction, but will now feel encouraged to do so by the availability of a disabled person as an instructor. The third reason is the simple ground of justice.
As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir 666 J. Hannam) would admit, the most important single issue in the sphere of discrimination is the changing of attitudes. In that context, it is important to put on record the healthy and civilised attitude demonstrated by all the professionals involved in driving instruction. I pay tribute to the Motor Schools Association of Great Britain, the Driving Instructors Association and many individual driving schools such as the British School of Motoring and those in my constituency. I had intended to say more about their attitudes but, sadly, and in the interests of making progress with the Bill of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I am unable to do so.

§ Mr. Soley
I could be struck by lightning.

§ Mr. Luff
Do not tempt me. I could say yet more about such schools; I have a lengthy list.
There are two reasons why I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. First, it is important to put on record that disabled people who see the Bill passed through both Houses of Parliament should not rush to set up driving schools. It is a precarious business and, before they set up schools, they should ensure that there is a market in the district where they are thinking of establishing one. Schools are opening and closing with alarming regularity in my constituency.
I have a serious point to make to the Minister. I have been alarmed at the number of occasions on which general practitioners do not seem properly to have understood the implications of a disability on the qualification of an individual to hold an ordinary driving licence. I want to alert the Minister of the possibility of him and his officials in the relevant agency using disabled qualified driving instructors to provide a second opinion to the general practitioners' opinion for all those people who wish to drive but are disabled and need medical proof of their ability to drive before they can obtain a licence.
I commend the Bill to the House and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter on everything that he has done to enable it to come before us.