---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

Our opposition to Clause 31 is relevant to our recent discussion. The explanatory note on Clause 32, which gives rise to Schedule 4, states that"““driving instructors have to be registered if they give paid instruction of any prescribed description. This enables the existing provision regarding paid driving instruction to the driving of motor cars to be extended, by regulation, to other motor vehicle types in addition to motor cars, for example, driving instruction in respect of lorries, buses and motorcycles””." What is the justification for that extension in regulation? The Government seem, as always, to want to increase regulation and controls and are doing so without justification. One of the greatest concerns is the need for people to obtain quick access to training. If people want to engage with a career change and to train to use a heavy goods vehicle, for example, they want to have that instruction straight away, obtain their qualification and get on with their new job. At the moment there are substantial delays in obtaining a test for driving a heavy goods vehicle or bus. As a result, the potential drivers of those vehicles do not own them themselves, but have to hire vehicles for training. That is an additional delay and expense. As a consequence, the total cost falls on the individual who is trying to improve his finances and job opportunities by becoming an HGV driver. We should have more deregulation in this area and encourage more people to go into the training of drivers of heavy lorries or buses. We should think about deregulating the whole system of lorry driver testing so that it can be carried out close to when someone wants to take a test rather than delaying it for weeks or months. We remain convinced that this clause is unnecessary. It is bureaucratic and adds to regulation. Will the Minister explain why he feels that it is necessary?