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.

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

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—

(a) to refuse to grant an emergency control certificate, or

(b) to revoke an emergency control certificate, or

(c) relating to modifications which may be specified in the emergency control certificate, or

(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.

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.

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.

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?

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"—

The Member for Hertfordshire, North.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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—

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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).

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

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.

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

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—

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.

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.

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.

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.

I note that it has now been changed.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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

With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 16, in clause 1, page 2, line 38 at end insert—

'(7A) On production of a medical certificate by a doctor approved by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, any person previously recorded as disabled under section 125A(1) of this Act may apply to have the details of his disability removed from the register, and from his driving licence, and be notified by the relevant authority that such removal has taken place.'.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), on a point of order, questioned the motives of some of us for taking part in today's debate on the Bill. I may think that the hon. Gentleman's Bill about the press is an iniquitous attempt to censor it, but I am speaking today because I have a specific interest in the disabled.

My constituency contains Hexham hospital, which is the regional centre for spinal injuries for the whole of the northern region. Therefore, I see at first hand the effects caused, particularly to young people who are seriously injured in road and industrial accidents. They frequently come into town so we see how their recovery progresses and how people with appalling, crippling injuries can become much fitter and restored. The sort of measure proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) provides exactly the opportunity that such people need to find a different job. Therefore, I warmly welcome the Bill, which removes another barrier to the disabled.

My constituents live side by side with the Stoke Mandeville spinal injuries unit. Constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House will regard the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) as providing important new opportunities to disabled people. I think that our constituents, as well as hon. Members, will resent some of the insinuations contained in the remarks by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley).

I agree with my hon. Friend, and appreciate that, as he has the Stoke Mandeville unit in his constituency, he has even more experience of what happens than I do.

One of the problems that people face on their way to recovery is that of their future. Many of them receive compensation for industrial and motor accidents, but life looks bleak unless they can find something worth while to do. That is why the Bill is so good, and why I largely support it. The only purpose of my amendments is to seek clarification on one or two issues.

I join in the congratulations to the Department of Transport, whose officials have clearly been extremely helpful. We often forget their role. The input of those at the disability unit must be particularly warmly welcomed by those of us who have sought their advice. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic bears in mind my kind words when I come to him seeking a new bypass in my constituency.

The purpose of the new clause and the amendments is to seek clarification about the role of the medical assessor when granting disabled people licences to become driving instructors. Had I gone to MAVIS, who has been mentioned a number of times, my questions would have been answered. I was interested to read the report by the Standing Committee on the Bill and the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter about MAVIS I must make an effort to go down to see her for, if no other reason than to eat the rock cakes, of which I am particularly fond, and which my hon. Friend mentioned on Second Reading.

One of my problems relates to when an applicant has a licence granted to him as a disabled driver some time after he visits MAVIS seeking the certificate to become a driving instructor. I am not sure how up to date the medical advice needs to be. The problem is that a disabled driver's licence could have been issued some time ago, and when he arrives at MAVIS his licence could be old and his condition could have deteriorated. The assessor who grants the emergency control certificate will have to make some form of medical judgment about the person seen on the day. I was trying to find out about the advice that the assessor would have in order to make that judgment. I see that on Second Reading it was said that the assessor would have access to medical advice, but I should like to know more about that advice.

New clause 5 gives the applicant the right to claim an on-site medical assessment provided notice is given. I floated that suggestion because it is important that if there were a dispute about the disabled person's condition, that person should be able to turn to an approved medical adviser and doctor for representation on the day. That might overcome some of the problems.

I also want to explore the medical qualifications of the applicant's assessors. They will clearly be skilled in driving and driving instruction. I am anxious to know more about their medical background. That matter was raised a number of times in the Second Reading debate, which was brief, and in Committee, which was also brief.

On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who is not present, talked about regular retesting and I think that the duty to disclose further disability was mentioned. A disabled driving instructor with a progressive condition has a duty to reveal that to the authorities. However, if someone makes a living from instructing—and given that being disabled makes earning a living harder—clearly, it would not be to his advantage to reveal that his condition was deteriorating, even if he had an obligation to do so. There is regular retesting, but I should like to know the length of the intervals before which the person with the licence is required to return for a test. Obviously, that would depend on the disability. In some cases, it might be advisable for a person to be retested every three months, but for others it might be necessary only every year, which I believe is the maximum allowed.

My other amendments follow the same line in that they require an applicant to provide a medical certificate. They also require that when the DVLA grants a licence, it can insist that the successful applicant returns for regular medical tests. I tabled the amendments because I was not sure whether the Bill covered this point—at least, I could not see it in the Bill. It seemed to me that the Bill perhaps leaves it too much to the disabled instructor's own volition to come forward. Of course, if he does not, he will commit an offence; but I thought that my provision was in the interests of public safety.

One of the other amendments deals with wiping the medical record clean, on medical advice, if a person is cured of his disability. This relates to amendments in a different group by means of which I have sought to incorporate notes of the disability in a record. It will of course be important to note the nature of people's disabilities so as to know whether their condition is likely to get worse. Nevertheless, if a disability has cleared up or disappeared, the record of it should be expunged.

These are certainly technical amendments, designed to illicit some clarity. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter will be able to shed some light on this subject. I reiterate that I believe this to be a worthwhile Bill. My hon. Friend deserves great credit for it, and I wish it an easy passage into law.

I warmly welcome the Bill, the more so because I know of the deep commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannan) to getting a fair deal for disabled people in all walks of life.

We all feel a sense of involvement in trying to help disabled people. In my constituency, I have meetings with the Sutton Disabled Association and I know how strongly its members feel that they should have access to all the jobs that able-bodied people have. I am sure that they think that they should be able to become driving instructors, too. A cousin of mine has no hands, but he drives around very deftly. Why should not he be an instructor?

I sympathise with new clause 5. It is important to accord a high priority to a rigorous health examination. That in no way demeans the disabled person. Disabled people do not seek positive discrimination, and it should be clear to all that they are wholly capable of becoming not just drivers, but driving instructors. If there is any doubt about a person's medical condition, he should have the right to ask for a further examination to prove that he is perfectly capable of the task. Likewise, his medical condition should be regularly assessed; we should not rely on his revealing whether he is fit to become a driving instructor.

The Bill can achieve a great deal. It is important to remove all elements of doubt about people's ability to become instructors. After all, learner drivers need to feel confident that their instructors are as capable as able-bodied drivers. That is why this group of amendments deserves serious consideration.

Again, I wholeheartedly congratulate my hon. Friend on the Bill. It is long overdue.

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), and I apologise for having to speak now with my back to her—one cannot face in both directions at once, unless one is a better politician than I am.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) will allow me to speak against his new clause, although I should point out that his remarks may have made it possible to hold truncated debates on other groups, because he ranged widely over the issues.

The test of the assessment should not be whether a driver can make an emergency stop. Any driver needs to be able to do that. The question is whether a supervising driver can bring a vehicle to a controlled stop if the trainee gets out of control. The nearest analogy that I can think of would come from the occasional campaigns to require new drivers and experienced drivers to be extensively eye-tested. Of course, the real test is whether they can see what they need for driving—can they read a number plate at the specified distance? That should show whether their eyes are working well. Eyesight is not usually the key factor in crashes anyway. It is often young people, who have the best eyes, who have the most frequent and the worst crashes.

The point at issue, I repeat, is whether the person will be able to bring the vehicle to a controlled stop. I do not see how medical examinations are relevant to that. Passing or failing such examinations will not necessarily help. The only instance in which an examination would help is when people have disclosed the fact that they have a condition that is predicted to get worse. Some of the other provisions of the Bill may then be used to ensure that they present themselves for retesting.

I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) has to say in response. I recommend that we stick to the practical question: will the driving instructor actually be able to bring the vehicle to a controlled halt?

The Bill deals with people whose driving licences are limited under section 92(5)(b) of the Road Traffic Act—people who require a vehicle of a particular construction or design to be able to drive safely. The sort of people who have a medical condition that is likely to deteriorate over a fairly short period are usually dealt with under section 92(4)(b)—the section in which the Secretary of State must not refuse to grant a licence

"on account of any relevant disability which is prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph … if the applicant satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed with a view to authorising the grant of a licence to a person in whose case the disability is appropriately controlled".

If a person's condition is deteriorating, the Secretary of State is entitled to impose particular conditions on his driving licence to take account of that. Is it not true that most of the people covered by the Bill will not have deteriorating medical conditions—at least not to any great extent? Will they not mostly be people with stable conditions who need a car that has been adapted?

I agree. That was most helpful.

The new clause and amendments all relate to medical examinations or changes in medical circumstances. I hope to be able to persuade the House that they are not necessary.

The Bill takes the driving instructor approval process onto new ground—to include disabled instructors. As well as the requirement to hold a full driving licence, an applicant will need to get through the three stages of the qualifying examination: the written theory test, the test of driving ability and, finally, after a training period, the last practical test. That applies to everyone becoming a driving instructor, and the same conditions will apply to a disabled driver who has to satisfy all the requirements. The Bill takes us into new ground under clause 3, where we have assessment of the ability to control a motor vehicle in an emergency, so that the necessary emergency control certificate can be issued. Assessment of a disabled person's competence to take control of a moving vehicle is not a medical assessment of that person's condition.

11.30 pm

A disabled person's medical condition will be relevant only in so far as it impinges on his ability to control a vehicle in an emergency situation while giving instruction, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) pointed out, with or without the additional modifications to the vehicle that may be necessary.

The assessment of emergency control proposed in the Bill will not be a medical assessment. The disabled person, whatever his medical condition at the time of assessment, will be required simply to demonstrate the necessary emergency control. If the disabled person can satisfy the assessor on that, he will be issued with a certificate which will enable him to apply for registration as an approved driving instructor, assuming that he passes all parts of the examination.

The new clause envisages a potential disabled driving instructor undergoing a further medical examination at the assessment centre. Why "further", given that the emergency control assessment will not entail a medical examination? If the disabled person can demonstrate satisfactorily to the assessor that he can exercise emergency control, the person's medical condition is relevant only, first, in respect of what additional modifications to the vehicle, if any, the assessor may specify in the emergency control certificate and, secondly, the time period, again if any, after which the assessor considers the person should undergo a further assessment of emergency control ability.

There is no medical examination, only an assessment of the condition of that person, and when he may be required to be brought back again for another assessment.

In reaching his view on those aspects of the emergency control assessment, the assessor will use his professional and specialist knowledge of the sorts of vehicle modifications that are available to assist a disabled person give safe driving instruction. Where a disabled person has a progressive illness that reduces physical capacity over time—that will apply in some cases—the assessor will, if needed, have access to medical advice from the Department's medical adviser at the DVLA, and the Bill places on the applicant a duty to disclose such details of his physical disability as the Secretary of State may require. If, in the rare case, the assessor considers it would be helpful for the applicant to undergo a medical examination, he can inform the applicant accordingly, and request, but not oblige, the person to have the examination and to inform him of the outcome, before finally making a decision on the details of modifications. In that case, the medical examination is aimed purely at arriving at the right kind of modification needed for the vehicle to be used by the disabled driving instructor, or for the time period to be specified. Therefore, the new clause is not required because we are not carrying out medical examinations and do not need to do so at the time of the assessment.

Amendment No. 16 appears to be designed to allow a previously disabled person who has taken advantage of the Bill, but is no longer disabled, to become an unrestricted driving instructor, and also, rather bizarrely, to have details of the disability removed from his driving licence. The Bill is designed to enable physically disabled people who meet the conditions to become driving instructors, but with the limitation that they can give paid driving instruction only in a vehicle and class covered by the person's limited driving licence. In practice, that means automatic cars with any additional modifications, which will be specified in a certificate. The Bill is not designed to deal with those who, for whatever reason, are no longer suffering from a relevant or prospective disability.

If a previously disabled person, who is registered as a disabled driving instructor, wishes to have that restriction removed from the register, the person must first obtain a full driving licence in the normal way. In other words, if a person who has recovered full physical capacity, such that his driving licence need no longer be limited by virtue of the earlier disability, there is nothing to prevent that person from taking and passing the driving test in a car fitted with manual transmission, and thereby obtain a full driving licence.

The production of a medical certificate, as envisaged by the amendment, will not be sufficient to change his driving licence in any material way. While there may be circumstances where limited improvements in physical capacity are such that certain restrictions may be removed from the driving licence, existing driver licensing regulations cater for such circumstances. There is no need for such a provision in the Bill.

If a previously disabled person obtains a full driving licence, that person can apply to the registrar for inclusion in the register under the terms of the existing legislation governing able-bodied driving instructors. The person would no longer meet the conditions proposed in the Bill. In practice, it is highly likely that a previously disabled registered driving instructor would wish to apply for unrestricted registration, since that would enable him to offer his instructional services to a wider market. There is no need for that to be enshrined in legislation in the way that the new clause proposes. Therefore, I hope that it will not be pressed to a vote.

The Bill provides that a disabled person may be included in the register of approved driving instructors, on condition that, at any time, he submits himself to a further emergency control assessment and a test of continued ability of fitness to give instruction. That applies also to able-bodied instructors, as at present. Amendment No. 18 speaks of a "medical examination". What matters is the ability to control a vehicle of a class covered by the driving licence, with any additional modifications, which may be specified. It is that emergency control ability, and general driving ability, which concern the registrar. If the registrar requires a registered disabled instructor to undergo a further emergency control assessment because, for instance, the person had notified the registrar that his disability had worsened, as he would be under a legal duty to do, it would be the outcome of that assessment which interested the registrar, not the outcome of any medical examination.

If, on a reassessment of emergency control, the assessor is no longer satisfied that the disabled driving instructor can exercise the necessary emergency control, the Bill provides for the certificate to be revoked. On receipt of notification of recovation, it will be an offence for the disabled driving instructor to give paid instruction, thereby preserving road safety interests, even though it may take a little longer for his name to be removed from the register. We are covering every possible aspect of road safety. Throughout the whole of the process, a medical examination is not relevant.

Amendment No. 20 would be extremely bureaucratic. It would provide some copper plating to minimise or remove the risk of applicants making incomplete declarations as to the nature of their disabilities. We debated how a disabled driving instructor may want to hold back from giving the necessary information. The amendment would place an unnecessary burden on the disabled person. who would have to incur the cost of acquiring a medical certificate before applying for an emergency control assessment. There is no evidence to suggest that such a measure could be justified on road safety grounds. Most physical disabilities will be obvious and the condition will be stable, for example in the case of paraplegics, and even where the disability is progressive, other provisions in the Bill adequately deal with that.

It is important to draw the distinction between applying for the emergency control certificate and later entry to the register of approved driving instructors. At the time of the certificate assessment, the declaration of disabilities and prospective disabilities will be to aid the assessor form a view as to the nature of any modifications to the vehicle that may be necessary for the purpose of giving instruction, and the time period to be specified after which further emergency control assessment should be undertaken. A medical certificate will not add anything to the assessment of emergency control. The person, whatever his certificate says, will either be able or unable to control the vehicle in the simulated situation. It is as simple as that.

When a disabled person has been included in the register, or when he holds a trainee licence to instruct, he will be under a statutory duty to inform the registrar if he becomes aware either of a relevant or prospective disability that he has not previously notified or of a previously notified disability that has worsened. A person who fails to comply with that duty will be guilty of an offence. On receipt of such notification, the registrar can require a person to undergo a further emergency control assessment. That, again, provides the necessary road safety safeguard.

We have to assume that disabled people are as law abiding as those who are not. The burden on the disabled potential driving instructor, which would be entailed by requiring the production of a medical certificate, cannot be justified, given all the other safeguards in the Bill. I hope that I have convinced my hon. Friend and the House that the new clause and the amendments are unnecessary.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said at the outset, this is a popular measure. Because of the time constraints on private Member's Bills, it flew through its Second Reading and Committee stage. One of the consequent disadvantages was that a few points were not fully explained. I am, therefore, grateful that my hon. Friend has dealt so fully with the points that I have raised. He has clarified the position. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 14, leave out

'as that of a disabled instructor'.

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'.

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—

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is the crux of the argument. It is a balanced decision. Obviously one does not want the 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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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".

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

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.

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.

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—

rose—

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.

rose—

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

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—

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

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 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.

We now come to amendments Nos. 2 and 9.

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.

I beg to move amendment No. 22, in line 49 leave out 'six' and insert 'three'.

I shall not detain the House for long. Amendment No. 22 would reduce from six months to three months the time in which an applicant who had failed an assessment could reapply. It seemed on that margin that the six-month period was rather too long, given the importance of someone being able to obtain employment. It would be kinder to allow the applicant to reapply after only three months. I am aware that I may have been considered to be beastly to the applicant in amendments Nos. 15 and 17, so I have been kinder in amendment No. 22. On the margin, I felt that it might be better to reduce the time involved.

It is an interesting amendment about which I thought deeply. The Bill states that a period of six months shall elapse before a further assessment may be undergone. We decided that there would be no fee for the assessment, but if the period between assessments is too short, we should be encouraging time wasters at the expense of the taxpayer. If the period is shorter, it is less likely that there will have been a material change in the person's physical condition, so a shorter period may encourage some people to apply for another assessment when the likelihood is that the outcome will be the same.

I suggest that we need to see how the provision works in practice. If it transpires that six months is an unreasonably long period to expect disabled people to wait before they can apply for another assessment, regulations can easily be made to shorten the period or to lengthen it if our experience of the operation of the Bill suggests that. I should like the provision to stay in its present form with the six-month period. We should see how things turn out and, if necessary, amend the provision in future. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) will withdraw the amendment.

I am concerned about the six-month gap between taking an assessment and taking a further assessment, given that this is not an area in which there should be a right of appeal. Indeed, thanks to our earlier decision, there will not be such a right. Given that there is no right of appeal, it could be unfair to an applicant to have to wait as long as six months before the next assessment and that might lead to a sense of injustice in those who wish to take the test again speedily. With most vocational qualifications, there is some gap before one can take the test or the examination again, but it is not normally as long as six months. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) will be prepared to consider the matter again. We do not have to push the matter to a Division today. Six months is rather a long time to wait for such reassessment, so I hope that the point can be considered again.

By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I have made it clear that we shall have to look at the matter in the light of experience. No one is sure what the correct period is. With other forms of disability allowance, there are periods after which one can reapply. All that we can do at this stage is to take a period that seems to be reasonable and sensible. If necessary, it can be changed by regulation in future.

I hear exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) says and I am grateful for his assurance that when the Bill comes into force, the practice will be examined to see whether the time scale needs to be reviewed. On that basis and as I see the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) waiting to proceed with his iniquitous Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill, I shall not detain the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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.

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.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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.

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.

The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) says that he does not know why Conservative Members want to amend his Bill. Let me 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.

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.

That is not a matter for the Chair, although it may be a point of substance.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I hope that it is, indeed, a point of order.

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.

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.

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.

That is not true.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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—

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

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.

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.

rose—

rose—

Order. We cannot have one intervention on another.

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.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is the hon. Gentleman seeking the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment?

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

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 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.

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—

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.

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.

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—

rose—

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—

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

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

I could be struck by lightning.

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.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Early-day motion 1809, tabled by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), was mentioned earlier. The hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber and said that he was distressed as the movers of amendments to his Bill should have spoken to him before. I find that an amazing cheek as he had never mentioned anything to me about tabling his early-day motion, which is full of gross irregularities. The amendment tabled to it in the names of my hon. Friends helps to put the record right. But I have received representations from an enormous number of organisations and it is grossly wrong to suggest that I have been approached only by News International. The hon. Member for Hammersmith knows perfectly well that representations have been made from many organisations. I have offered to show him my files. I have in my hand representations from the Newspaper Publishers Association, which included eight newspaper groups. These groups include Associated Newspapers, Express Newspapers, News International, the Telegraph, the Observer, the Financial Times, the Guardian and Manchester Evening News, Mirror Group Newspapers and Newspaper Publishing.

How does the hon. Gentleman's point relate to new clause 1, which is the subject of the present debate?

My point of order relates to the Bill and to the way in which the hon. Member for Hammersmith has tabled an early-day motion regarding my conduct. What it says is grossly wrong. I should like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be fully aware of its gross inaccuracies and to make it clear to the House that I do not consider myself to have been used by News International. I have taken advantage of all the representations sent to me. News International is only one of eight newspaper groups that have made representations to me through the Newspaper Publishers Association.

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is unfair to you, because it is not really a point of order for you; but if you are considering it as a point of order, you will bear in mind the fact that we are allowed to table early-day motions at the Table Office for consideration by the Speaker when hon. Members are named in them. In my EDM I merely regret what the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East has done. There is nothing morally wrong with it, as I have often said. Indeed, I said that in Committee. All that I am doing is regretting the hon. Gentleman's actions. It would be amazing if we did not regret such things.

I have heard enough to know that this is not strictly a point of order for me. If hon. Members want to raise the point in the course of the debate when it is germane to the new clause or amendment under discussion, I will allow that, but I shall listen with close attention and jump from a great height on anyone who speaks irrelevantly.

I draw an analogy with "Erskine May", which provides guidance on what is acceptable behaviour in the House. "Erskine May" suggests that an hon. Member who intends to say something critical about another hon. Member gives him notice. I do not suggest that we go quite as far as that with journalism. I do not suggest that newspapers have to inform someone in advance if they intend to criticise him. But it is wise to follow that convention in the House.

If, say, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) wants to accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) of—to use his own strong word—colluding with a private sector body, I would regard it as right to follow the conventions and to ask my hon. Friend whether he minds and, even if he does mind, whether the statement is accurate. The fact that the hon. Gentleman failed to check the accuracy of his allegation puts him at grave risk of being caught by his own Bill—except that he is not an editor, proprietor or journalist.

It is not for me to criticise the selection of amendments, but I note that my proposal to call this the Press Control Bill was not accepted for discussion. For the purposes of the debate, however, let us call it that—

The clearest possible example of the sort of inaccuracy that the hon. Gentleman describes comes in the amendment in which he states that the National Union of Journalists opposes the Bill. It does not. Having considered the Bill more carefully—that is more than the hon. Gentleman has done—the NUJ is now in favour of it. so that inaccuracy can be corrected in precisely the way allowed for by my Bill. Matters of opinion cannot be—that is the difference.

The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying two things at once. Earlier, I said that I was not a good enough politician to face in two directions at once. The hon. Gentleman is going one better.

The press is as important to democracy as is the House of Commons; there is no dispute about that. In the House we have virtually no controls over what hon. Members say. We have virtually unlimited privilege. We can call someone a liar, a thief or a murderer. We can say that he holds unpleasant opinions. This power is seldom abused, for various reasons. A person who goes over the top too often gets disregarded. Some of us may be disregarded without having to do that, but it is an alternative way of reaching the shelf of bypassed Members. We have to face criticism and have our credibility tested.

My argument would be that a newspaper that too often wrongly uses whatever freedom it has will lose credibility, market share and influence. People contribute to newspapers for one of two reasons—they want either to make money or to have influence. Often, what they want and what they get are not the same. Lord Beaverbrook was always after propaganda. I can think of few successful campaigns with which he was associated, but that did not stop him going on for decade after decade, recruiting journalists who were specialists in vituperation. It is a matter of congratulation for Michael Foot that he was recruited on those grounds, not because his views were the same as those of Lord Beaverbrook. In fact, they disagreed on almost everything except the fun of strong argument.

1 pm

There is no argument in favour of a newspaper going in for inaccuracies. It would be marvellous if they could be as accurate and discriminating in their political and social reporting as they are in their sports reporting. A newspaper that was wrong about who had won the boxing or the football match, or about the ratio of wickets to runs, would soon be laughed out of the news stands. People would no longer buy it. However, it would not look to newspapers to follow the standards set by Members of Parliament because we have had an example this morning —that of the hon. Member for Hammersmith—of an hon. Member returning to the Chamber and telling us what had gone on in his absence. Perhaps he, like me, should have been a journalist.

I should declare one or two interests. I earn occasional sums of money from writing—not normally very much, especially when my editor is Mr. Auberon Waugh. I have had my legal expenses paid by various parts of the media. I am grateful for that, but I hope that they do not make it necessary again. I am prepared to ring up the newspapers and criticise, as I did yesterday with The Sun. I asked to speak to the editor and I was told that Mr. Kelvin McKenzie was away on holiday. I thought that he never went on holiday, but I left my complaint with his secretary.

We can look for examples in large newspapers as well as small ones of articles giving misleading impressions. For example, The Times diary yesterday reproduced part of a story from the BBC staff magazine, which said that Mr. John Birt had a new bathroom at work. However, Ariel gave the explanation for that, which was that the plumbing throughout the building had been changed. For a newspaper to put in the joke element and hold someone up to scorn is fair game, but it would be better if it were to publish a correction. It would also have been better if The Times had bothered to put in a correction when it described Lord Runcie, when Archbishop of Canterbury, as not being able to make up his mind about the Falklands campaign. Lord Runcie was clear at the time, and in written publications afterwards, that he supported throwing the Argentine invasion forces out of the Falklands. In many sectors, one can provide examples where newspapers do not live up to the standards that they have set themselves.

I should like the hon. Gentleman to concentrate on more serious examples. Most of the less serious examples get resolved easily and, where they do not, there is no great problem. I am worried about stories like that which appeared in The Sun at the time of the tragic Jamie Bulger murder. The headline said, "Boy, 12 held for Jamie murder". The police said at the time, and it was in the story:

"Nobody in this police station is being held for Jamie's murder."

The story and headline lead to the harassment of the family of that boy, who were in no position to complain. It could have led to wrongful conviction, as it has in the case of many other stories. Can we focus on the more serious aspects? By trying to talk out the Bill, the hon. Gentleman is not only continuing his practice—he has voted against press freedom many times and I can give the examples if he likes—but denying families such as the one involved here the right to have stories corrected. In that case, the boy had never been held for murder.

Order. That was rather a long intervention.

It is not my purpose to justify mistakes, just as it is not my purpose to justify the mistakes that the hon. Gentleman made earlier. I would criticise the newspaper. If people argue that we must have a system that deals with newspapers in a way that is different from how it deals with others, so that they can never make mistakes, we should have a further debate on that.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Evening Standard, which I gather is currently on the streets, there is a definitive report of our debate and its outcome? Apparently, we are in the middle of a furious Commons row.

Well! I think that it is a very good thing that newspaper journalists will not always reveal their sources. I shall not accuse anybody about where that report may have come from. I do not believe that it came from a Member of this House.

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point and turns to—

Order. Before we turn to anything, may I remind the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that this is not a Second Reading debate. We are debating a new clause. The hon. Gentleman must address himself strictly to the merits of the new clause.

I understand that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I anticipated it, to some extent, for I felt that we were going a bit wide. Nevertheless, I am all in favour of that. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) voted recently in favour of journalists being made to reveal their sources. That is one of the problems with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and why Channel 4 Box Productions ended up in court last year. The hon. Gentleman voted for it. He never spoke out against it at any stage.

I do not dispute that. That was not, I thought, what we were discussing. Can I just make one remark on what we were discussing—the standards that journalists should reach. The hon. Gentleman held up the front page of a small-sized newspaper. My criticism of newspapers, besides the specific point that the hon. Gentleman has fairly made, is that 240 two-year-olds die unnatural deaths each year, most of them predictable, most of them avoidable, and most of the means by which they die being given virtually no attention whatever. If I were to make a criticism of the media, it would be that they report unusual incidents, such as motorway fog crashes. Under the guidelines, which I believe should be open to inspection and which is the subject of the new clause, the media should be asked to think about their role in trying to understand common incidents which lead to avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap.

Each year, an average of seven people die in motorway fog crashes. Each day, an average of 14 people die in built-up areas. Which gets the attention? Which gets coverage on television or on the front page? It is the rare motorway fog crash. Which death of a two-year-old gets all the attention? It is the rare occasion, such as we have seen in the north-west, that grabs the headlines. What we do not hear about are the two-year-olds who die in, if I may describe it this way, packets of 16 or 20 each year in predictable ways.

It is not my purpose to stand here and point to all the problems with the media. There are problems with the media, but the House needs to understand that legislation is unlikely to be successful. If that course were pursued and people broke the legislation, there would be a growing demand, as I said when I ended my speech on Second Reading, for barbed wire around the pen.

I am holding the "Index on Censorship" to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith referred, as well as to the prevention of terrorism provisions and other measures. Some of them could be debated on their merits, but the general point that I make in the new clause is that we should ask proprietors, editors and those who control journalists and newspapers to tell us what standards they are after. I would not want such a provision to be incorporated in the Bill, because I do not want the Bill to be passed. My first words on Second Reading were that I did not want the Bill to get through. My aim is not to talk about it, but to destroy it. That follows the line I took when I voted against John Browne's privacy Bill—not because I do not believe in the right to privacy, but because I believe that legislation does not make all people perfect. It does not work.

So we come back to the question of what we would do. In this country, 30 per cent. of males aged 30 have already been convicted of a criminal offence for which they could have gone to gaol for six months or more. That number of people will be added to by journalists, sub-editors, editors, publishers and distributors. It is far better to ask ourselves what it is that we are trying to reduce. We are trying to reduce inaccuracy and unacceptable intrusions into privacy. We also have to decide what our approach will be to the casualties—those who carry the cost of the free press. To some extent, as I said at the TSB Forum on the power of the press yesterday—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) was also present to hear the distinguished editor of the Financial Times, Richard Lambert, speak—we have to accept that trying to have the press with total accuracy is like trying to have war without casualties: it does not happen. We must ask ourselves how best we can reduce the number of casualties without circumscribing or curtailing the press too much.

I do not agree with all the criticisms that have been made of the new Press Complaints Commission; it has done a far better job than has been suggested. It would work better if we tackled the problem from the point of view of what the proprietor and editor are willing to tolerate and what standards the journalists are trying to maintain.

Let us consider the point of view of the proprietor. It is perfectly reasonable for the BBC to produce guidelines on news, current affairs, documentaries, magazine programmes, features and factual programmes. Newspapers should be encouraged to do the same. I pay tribute to the South East London and Kentish Mercury Group, which regularly prints corrections on page two. It clears up ambiguities and corrects omissions and no one thinks less of it for doing so. I also pay tribute to a journalist, Jerry Green, of the Eltham and Sidcup News Shopper. He is one of few journalists whom I know who has never got a thing wrong. He checks and double checks. His news sense may not always be the same as mine, but he uses information that is true and accurate and makes it clear when he is quoting an opinion. If that standard can be achieved by a journalist in my constituency, it is the standard that others should be aiming for. The disagreement between the hon. Member for Hammersmith and me is that he and the Select Committee on National Heritage believe that it is possible to sew up the process of news gathering, of news tasting and of news editing in such a way as to ensure that mistakes and deliberate actions do not happen. I do not think that it is like that.

I should hate the hon. Gentleman to address an argument that does not exist. I agree with him. I have been encouraging newspapers to run correction columns because it is not always possible to get things right. The first article of the code of the Press Complaints Commission calls for accuracy. It tells newspapers that they should make a correction and adjudicates on it. The argument is not whether inaccuracies appear, but how they are corrected and, above all, who adjudicates. Editors adjudicate on themselves: that is an issue which the hon. Gentleman must address.

I think that, in the main, editors should adjudicate on themselves and that the majority on the Press Complaints Commission should be editors because that would be the best way of exerting the most pressure.

I want to keep the attention of the House for a moment on the benefits of leaving responsibility where it is. I know that I have been affected by the relative success in reducing drinking and driving in Britain. That was socially acceptable; people often knew that it was wrong, but continued to do it or tolerated other people around them doing it. The incidence is still too high, but it has been reduced at the levels where it has the most consequences by more than two thirds in the past 15 years by social change —by what people are willing to accept. If people are willing to discuss the matter explictly and to involve editors, proprietors and journalists—although not particularly the NUJ because any self-respecting journalist would reject the decisions of its executive and most NUJ journalists do not know what is being decided in their name—and if the House can make it clear that the group that will be most concerned to protect the freedoms of the press are Members of Parliament and that the press will be the next keenest group, we shall get a long way further forward. By giving people responsibility and by talking about it openly, we can reduce most of the problems.

Proprietors should have a better reason than I have heard for not having a published code that they want people to follow. Editors should be pretty sure that their staff know, and are reminded of, the standards that the newspaper sets itself. Richard Lambert said that the Financial Times relies on its reputation for accuracy, and the paper gets upset when it gets anything wrong. The Reader's Digest believes in not only accuracy but punctuation and getting everything right. It checks facts twice, which is one of the reasons why it is one of the most read and best selling periodicals in the country, but producing the Reader's Digest is a very different operation from producing a daily newspaper.

I think that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will confirm that the major problem is not with the local or regional press but with the national press. We should be clear that we are talking not only about small newspapers but about the broadsheets which have the same capacity to be inaccurate. Let us agree that we are talking mainly about inaccuracy or severe distortion. I am not concerned about newspapers being partial, biased or propagandist.

The new clause refers to editorial or journalistic guidance. Prior to the Calcutt report on privacy, the whole debate was occasion by the incident with Gorden Kaye when someone from the Sunday Sport burst into his hospital bedroom and behaved appallingly. The editor later described it as a great old-fashioned scoop. Does the guidance referred to in the new clause include such incidents which are nothing to do with accuracy—I am sure it is accurate to say that a journalist from the paper behaved in that way—but simply involves appalling behaviour?

The BBC's guidance—I recommend that hon. Members and people outside read it, but not adopt it if they work in the media—makes it clear that there should be good reason, and that the matter should be referred upwards, if someone intends to break the normal guidelines.

There are difficulties in trying to legislate for some related issues because if people are seeking evidence of serious wrong-doing, they often have to work with secret microphones or to film secretly. I do not claim to have sufficient knowledge always to put the dividing line where it should be, but it is like telling the difference between an elephant and a hippopotamus: one can normally distinguish one from the other, and in the same way, one can usually tell whether something is acceptable or not. In matters about which a significant part of the general public disagrees with an editor or a proprietor, having a debate or argument makes sense.

I have twice tried, unsuccessfully, to put three other groups on the same basis as journalists. The first was political parties in respect of their advertising. The Advertising Standards Authority said that it was impossible to determine whether a political party's advertising is capable of being judged right or wrong and it is, therefore, not covered by its standards.

The second group was lawyers in court. With the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) and any other lawyers present, I believe that lawyers spend a lot of time putting ideas to people in such a way as to try to get them to agree to something that is not true. They say, "I put it to you …" when they know perfectly well that what they are about to say is highly unlikely or a contradiction of the truth, but they say it because they have been instructed to say it or have made it up themselves, and wish to test people's arguments. It is impractical to require lawyers in court always to avoid doing that. It sometimes means substituting their judgment for what they have been instructed, like the journalist who has written the story in the Evening Standard about our proceedings today.

The third group is Members of Parliament. It is not a serious suggestion, but it would be interesting to consider how we could live up to standards that many people require in terms of avoiding privacy disclosures or inaccuracy. How might we allow a member of the general public to say that, on Friday 23 April, Peter Bottomley said something that was ambiguous, damaging or wrong, or a combination of those things? It is not practical, so we come back to what is most likely to have an effect in the medium term.

It can be agreed that legislation will not always work. Even if we had legislation covering the limited question of how to enforce a judgment made by a Press Complaints Commission—let alone an authority—what happens if and when an editor disagrees?

I give as an example a hypothetical case of a journalist who, after someone has been convicted of an IRA murder, says that the person who has been convicted is innocent. That journalist would be flatly contradicting the judgment of the original court, of a jury, of the Court of Appeal and of the House of Lords. The fact that five, 10 or 15 years later it becomes clear that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice does not help anyone trying to make a decision about a complaint that might have been made about that report when it was first published.

We should be very careful about putting legislative requirements on the media. We could debate the many requirements that already exist. I am still waiting for a letter about the existing restrictions on the media. I forget whether it should be from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, from the Home Office or from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who is responsible for the citizens charter. There are probably about 200 restrictions in one form or another—

Order I do not see how this relates to the new clause.

We are talking about whether it is possible for my proposal for having journalistic and editorial guidance to be a substitute for legislation. I do not intend to explain at length what is in my mind. As I understand it, we are discussing a Bill which would introduce legislative and statutory requirements. I propose a substitute for that. In doing so, I may occasionally stray towards the limits of order. I fully understand the guidance, correction and instructions from the Chair. I believe that it is better to concentrate on what proprietors, editors and journalists say are the standards to which they want to live up.

I go one stage further. Part of the instructions should be that when there is a significant ambiguity or inaccuracy, the periodical or newspaper concerned should say so at once. That would reduce any subsequent damages if there were a case for defamation or for libel. I suspect that that could deal with one or two cases that may yet come to court. In the case in which I was involved, if the editor had said straight away, "We did not mean to say that and we now understand that it was wrong", that would have been a standard met by the media which would have got rid of the need to employ lawyers.

The purpose of our debate today is not to reduce the costs of accuracy to newspapers. It is probably to raise the costs to them of accuracy. We are talking about newspapers, unless they are like the Sunday Sport which is losing circulation fast, with 70,000 copies out of circulation during the past year, and which will disappear from news stands relatively soon. We are talking about newspapers that class themselves as newspapers. If we ask how many times The Sun, to pick one example, is being sued for libel now compared with the figure for five or 10 years ago, the answer is very seldom.

That is no measure.

The hon. Gentleman says that that is no measure. I believe that it is relevant.

I say that it is no measure because many people who feel wronged and damaged by the antics of the sewer Sun cannot meet the legal bills involved in taking the paper on. The Sun well knows that, which is why it abuses its position.

That is not relevant to my remark that fewer people are suing The Sun. I suspect that if Lord McGregor were speaking in this debate, he would say that the Press Complaints Commission is getting fewer complaints from ordinary people. That is one of the reasonable tests of whether the pressures are working.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the editor of The Daily Star has said that as a result of peer pressure within the Press Complaints Commission, he has now disciplined his newspaper so that there are fewer complaints than there were before? Self-regulation is taking effect.

That is the case. I do not want to take up too much time as we lost so much time with points of order from the hon. Member for Hammersmith during our debate on the Road Traffic (Driving Instruction by Disabled Persons) Bill.

If we get rid of the idea that comprehensive legislation will bring a comprehensive solution, we can engage in debate about the standards to which proprietors, editors and journalists hold themselves. I recommend the method of criticising the BBC, for example, and saying, "What you did in the 'Real Lives' programme was not in accordance with your own guidelines." The BBC would then have to say that it did not want to pay attention to its guidelines, that the guidelines were wrong or that it got it wrong. I think that there is a far more effective way of proceeding.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith has rightly raised questions at his own press conferences and hearings, and I congratulate him on that. Some of the cases have come up again in the Select Committee on National Heritage. Where there are problems, they need attention; they do not necessarily need legislation. In so many areas, we have gone from having our awareness raised, to saying, "They should not do it", to legislating. The third stage ought to involve those concerned saying, "I should not do it." The fourth stage should be, "I intend not to do it"; and the last should be, "We don't get things wrong and when we do we are very angry about it; we say so and put it right"—which some editors already can say. That is what we are trying to achieve.

What John Browne proposed was wrong and would not have worked. What the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) proposed in his Right of Reply Bill would not have worked, and the present Bill would not work. My new clause would work, but I do not believe that it needs a Bill to go with it. It should be a requirement that people in the media place upon themselves, and I hope that that is what they will do.

I am in some difficulty, because the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) went rather wide. I shall attempt to explain what I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to do by means of the new clause. I shall address the points he made as briefly as possible to allow other hon. Members to have their say, although I do not think that time should trouble us too much, given that hon. Members took so much time on the previous Bill with the deliberate intention of talking my Bill out.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Yes, but let me just say that I have that from Conservative Members—

Order. We have gone through all this before. We have had quite enough of it. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hammersmith will address himself to the new clause.

I shall be delighted to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but in that case I shall not be able to give way to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald).

The hon. Gentleman is under no obligation to give way.

In that case, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall refuse—rather reluctantly, because I always prefer to take interventions.

I will give the hon. Member for Eltham credit on one issue and one issue only: he comes to the debate with a genuine belief in press freedom. I must say, however, that he is one of the most confused speakers on the subject that I have ever heard. I have to say to him, too, that his voting record on press freedom is bad. I have checked how he has voted on press freedom in the past. He voted against the defence of press freedom on a number of critical issues, including the issues that he raised just now when he referred to the ability of journalists to protect their sources. The journalist who was fined £75,000 last year was told in court that, if it happened again—that is, if he protected his sources again—he would face much more serious consequences. The hon. Member for Eltham never spoke out against that; he voted for it. He voted for the Official Secrets Act 1989 and for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which allow the police to confiscate journalists' materials. He voted for all those measures, yet he talks about being in favour of press freedom.

Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman what the debate is about. It is not about whether the British press needs more regulation. I restate my view, which I have expressed many times, that the British press is over-regulated in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. We actually inhibit good investigative journalists, yet we allow individuals to be abused. The headline in The Sun—

"Boy 12 is held for Jamie Murder"—

is but one example. I have already made the point that we should be looking not at the trivial cases to which the hon. Member for Eltham referred but at those much more critical cases. We are talking about a family whose son was taken to the police station to be questioned as a possible witness. Even The Sun quoted the police correctly as saying,

"We do not hold the murderer in this police station".

However, as hon. Members can see for themselves, the headline was:

"Boy 12 is held for Jamie Murder."

The hon. Member for Eltham claims that it is not a matter of who is doing the best thing, the worst thing or how to improve matters. He is saying that the people concerned, and that 12-year-old, have no rights. I believe that they have rights. We could extend those rights by saying that they could sue for libel. However, we were talking about a family which was in no position to complain effectively—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If the hon. Lady will give me time to finish, I will give way. It is very important that she hears the argument through.

The family to which I referred was very vulnerable not least because it had no stable accommodation. How is that family supposed to sue for libel when it will not be able to obtain legal aid as it is being moved onto other accommodation? How can that family go to the Press Complaints Commission when the complaint must be put in writing? Can I take the matter up for them? No, I cannot because I am a third party. No one else can take the matter up on their behalf—other than perhaps a lawyer if the family situation is stable enough and it has the necessary income, which it does not.

The amazing thing about the story—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

I will give way to the hon. Lady when I have completed this point.

According to the new clause, all these issues should be a matter of guidance for editors. There is no problem about that. That is happening now.

Give way.

I will give way in just a moment. The hon. Lady should be patient. Conservative Members are terribly impatient today.

I am grateful to the people in News International who officially and unofficially have kept me well informed about the views of News International—[Interruption.] Conservative Members would probably like me to be taken to court for not revealing my sources. The hon. Member for Eltham would certainly like that as he supported the legislation to allow that.

In a news release headed

"News International Supports Press Self-Regulation"

News International states that editors

"today made a further commitment to self-regulation of the press by their decision to incorporate, or continue to incorporate the Press Complaints Commission's new code of conduct into the journalists' handbook of each title."

That is something similar to what the hon. Member for Eltham seeks to achieve in the new clause. The news release continues:

"Compliance with the code will be a condition of appointment, and breach of the code will be a disciplinary matter."

That news release is dated 27 January 1993. However, the article to which I referred appeared in The Sun on 17 February. Has the editor been disciplined? Has he been fired? Has he even been told off? Has he put it right? No, he has not. Despite the editor's code, he published the article. However, the family concerned has lost all its rights. The child involved could, as in many of the cases in recent years—and this is one reason why I introduced the Bill—have been wrongfully convicted. We do not have the right to put innocent people in prison in the name of press freedom.

The hon. Gentleman appears to be making enormously sweeping statements. With regard to the headline in the newspaper to which the hon. Gentleman referred, how does he know for a fact that the family made a complaint? Does he know for a fact that the family wrote to the Press Complaints Commission?

If the hon. Lady considers the family's background she will see that I used my words cautiously. I do not wish to label the family and I would certainly not say about it the kind of things that The Sun said. I am satisfied that the family is not in a position to pursue a complaint.

The issue is very important. If we reach the appropriate point in the debate, I could mention other examples—if I were to quote them now you would rightly rule me out of order Madam Deputy Speaker—of the way in which the Press Complaints Commission is totally inadequate to help people who are not well equipped, for whatever reason, to make formal written complaints of the type required by the PCC, and who do not have the safeguard of a legal person or adviser to help them. Many people are in that position.

If the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) would like to pursue the matter with me afterwards, I will explain the problem in much more detail. However, I repeat: have some sensitivity for the family involved; look at the original story. If the hon. Lady has any sensitivity, she might begin to understand why I am confident that the family could not pursue the matter on its own. That is the point.

Let us be clear about what the hon. Gentleman seeks to do in his amendment:

"Each newspaper will make available for public inspection at its registered office a copy of any editorial or journalistic guidance provided for the use of its staff … Such guidance shall be open to inspection during normal working hours of the company."

That is perfectly reasonable. It is right that newspapers should be encouraged to do it. But it should not be a matter for legislation. The hon. Gentleman is determined to put that provision in the Bill. I am not too worried about it. I would not lose any sleep if it were included. But it is not the appropriate way to do it. The hon. Gentleman, in his muddled thinking on the matter, does not understand the dangers in this.

My Bill focuses on accuracy and does not fine newspapers—all the suggestions by the ombudsman, David Calcutt and so on include fining newspapers—because, if we go down that road, we restrict press freedom because the threat of the fine can worry genuine and good investigative journalists. We must make the newspaper put right what it has got wrong.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that newspapers have good practices. As he said, there are many such practices, especially in local newspapers. Newspapers run columns for corrections and outline editorial policy. That is good: it must be encouraged. Indeed, I am pleased that it is happening more often as a result of my campaign. That is part of what I am about. It is one of the reasons why I can say that, win or lose today, the fight will go on. More importantly, it has already achieved a great deal, and I am determined not to let go of it for that reason.

The press will not be allowed to continue getting away with the disgraceful lies which rip away the life of a family, as in the case of the headline I referred to earlier, and at the same time create a situation in which people can face wrongful conviction. Dealing again with the hon. Gentleman's amendment, we must remember that having guidance is not enough. The case of the Taylor sisters is going before the courts on appeal partly on the basis of press reporting.

Unlike the National Union of Journalists which did a U-turn on the matter, the hon. Gentleman has not thought the matter through. We must have something that stops such disgraceful lies being told. The answer is not to fine or punish in some way: it is simply to say that if the newspapers get it wrong, they must put it right. People say to me, as the hon. Gentleman did, that we cannot have accuracy because it is someone else's mind, but I did not invent the idea of adjudicating on accuracy. The editors and proprietors invented it: they put it in the code of the Press Complaints Commission. If they cannot be accurate, they should take it out of the code. But it is there. My only argument then is if they say that it can be done, if they give adjudication the credence of being article 1 in their code —not way down the list—it should be seen to be independent.

The hon. Gentleman should know from his good work in the alcohol and driving field, that it would be unfair if, when he went to court and gave his evidence, the police gave their evidence against him and then took off their helmets, climbed into the judge's box, put on a wig and said that they would now adjudicate. The hon. Gentleman would say that that was unfair. I am simply saying that if the editors adjudicate on their own errors, can we be surprised if people do not have confidence in the system? If the editors had adjudicated on the story I referred to, could we have confidence in it? I have told the editors many times that it does not matter if they give the right ruling: their problem is that they do not have credibility because they are not seen as independent. That is the reason why I want to set up a body which has some independence and, above all, involves working journalists but not so many editors. If such a body is dominated by editors, it is dominated by people who have moved away from the journalistic world into the managerial world. That is important because they then also have an interest in circulation.

The hon. Member for Eltham made the important point that a paper can lose readers if it gets it wrong. That is why—he may already know the explanation, I do not know—local papers tend to be better than national papers. They are much closer to their community. The national papers do not care so much.

The Sun got it badly wrong on Hillsborough and burned its fingers. So no one in Merseyside buys The Sun now. That is the only example of which I am aware of a national paper losing readers. We have a duty to protect the rights of people such as the 12-year-old child and his family to whom I referred and other people like them. Unless Conservative Members address that issue seriously, we shall continue to lose press freedom in Britain. They should remember that we have been warned by the International Press Institute that we are losing press freedom as a result of some of the acts to which I have referred. At the same time, abuses will continue.

Therefore, the argument is not that an amendment such as that be included in my Bill; it is that such an amendment should be included in any code of practice whether drawn up by my body or any other body. But that is not an alternative.