Lords amendment: No. 98, in page 55, line 11, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
1.—(I) in determining whether an individual is of good repute, traffic commissioners shall have regard to all the relevant evidence and in particular to—
(2) In determining whether a company is of good repute, traffic commissioners shall have regard to all the relevant evidence and in particular to—
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I think that this is best described as a clarifying amendment. It is an attempt to redraft the "good repute" provisions of the Bill as they left this House. A certain amount of confusion was created by the original draft because it had slightly confused the criteria for judging the repute of individuals with those for judging the repute of companies. I hope that the new draft commends itself to this House, as it did to their Lordships, as an improvement on the original draft.
These amendments are purely technical. They are designed to ensure that paragraphs 7 to 9 of schedule 3 really mean what they should—that they agree in every way with the EEC access directive. The previous draft was unclear in two small respects.