---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is resting rather more on the meeting which my honourable friend in the other place will have on European issues than perhaps is merited. Of course, we are concerned about aspects of the European directive and we are carrying out discussions in Europe. But his amendment seeks to achieve something to which the Government are not committed at present, nor can I give an assurance from the Dispatch Box that we will argue the case in quite the terms of the amendment. As I said in Committee, I share entirely the noble Lord’s wish to increase the skills of our young people. Driving is an important area and the acquisition of such skills can be extremely useful. We have a shortage of skilled drivers and I am at one with the noble Lord in looking at ways, through the sector skills councils, of improving opportunities. We are involved in secondary legislation which will need to be passed by both Houses of Parliament to implement a European directive providing for the introduction of a certificate of professional competence for bus drivers and its renewal on a five-yearly basis. That will link in with European rules on minimum driving ages. The implementation of the directive will provide a suitable opportunity to introduce a coherent stakeholder-supported scheme for young PCV drivers that will enable them to work commercially while acquiring their certificate of professional competence. However, I should say that we are not absolutely committed to the concept outlined in the noble Lord’s amendment. Our position is clear. We understand the argument regarding truck drivers and the noble Lord knows that we support schemes in that area. The problem with public service vehicles is obvious; that is, passengers are being carried. The noble Lord’s amendment would open the prospect that a person who learned to drive such vehicles would be in charge of passengers at a very young age. I repeat that we are in discussions in Europe on this. My honourable friend Karen Buck in the other place is going to Europe to discuss the Council directive. We are also at one with him on the objective of improving training opportunities. But I hope he will accept that if the amendment were agreed to, we would be operating within a framework that might not suit us in relation to the European directive, which still needs a considerable amount of work. In any case, separate legislation would have to be proposed in this House to give effect to the objective of the amendment. This is a live issue, and a constructive one. We have much the same aim as the noble Lord, but to introduce such a provision at this point would not advance the cause. Indeed, it might set us back. On that basis—that we are in talks about the implementation of the European directive and that secondary legislation will have to be brought before this House and another place—I hope that the noble Lord recognises that we will meet his objectives in large part, but we cannot be tied to the introduction of this amendment.