Road Safety Bill [HL]

I am grateful to noble Lords for contributing to the debate, especially to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in his introduction and thinly veiled threat that unless I produce a decent, helpful response today, we shall hear more on Report. He may not consider my response sufficient to obviate that need but I shall do my best. First, I shall be negative about his amendments because although I have heard from all parts of the Committee some approval of the scheme—even from the Benches behind me—all noble Lords have expressed themselves in fairly general terms. The devil lies in some of the detail. I hear what the noble Lord said about improving recruitment to bus driving—we know of the difficulties with recruitment, and the scheme has its attractions. I am minded to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on emphasising the fact that if we are concerned about developing the skills of the younger generation, this is one that we should attend to. But there are problems with the amendment. I do not want to be too brutal in dismantling it, but will argue against it on three grounds. Ending on a rising note of optimism—not to say a constructive stance—I hope to win the support of the Committee. The trouble with the amendment is that it looks as though we are saying to the nation that there is a driving age of 17 for car drivers, but you may find yourselves on a bus with a 16 year-old driver. That is an interesting concept that might be difficult to sustain. There is no end point to the scheme. It says that 16 to 21 year-olds can join, but can someone keep struggling on? Can someone be a member of a young person’s scheme when he is 42 because he has failed over the previous 20 years to satisfy the examiner? The amendment is defective on such matters, so I cannot accept it. I should emphasise, too, that it is contrary to European legislation. A European directive provides that passenger-carrying vehicles, such as buses, cannot be driven by anyone under 18, so there would be a European problem to overcome if we accepted the amendment. I hear what my noble friend Lord Snape said about all sorts of young people in the Armed Forces careering around in wagons. First, the Armed Forces are careful enough to ensure that vehicles are driven in fairly restricted circumstances. Secondly, 16 year-olds are not engaged in the Armed Forces, so there is no direct parallel with the scheme. Let me get on to the positive side of the amendment. I am sure that noble Lords have formed the impression that I have lost all imagination or commitment to the development of our nation’s skills. The European Parliament and Council are providing for the introduction of a certificate of professional competence for bus and lorry drivers, and its renewal every five years. That will link with European rules on minimum driving ages, and the implementation of the directive will provide an excellent opportunity to produce a coherent stakeholder-supported scheme for young drivers, which is what the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to do. We cannot do that with this amendment, but we shall shortly have the European directive, which will oblige us to respond positively to the concept of enhancing and developing the skills of younger drivers. I hope that the noble Lord will think that that is a sufficiently sound answer that merits not renewing the issue on Report, and that he will withdraw his amendment.