|
Extract from House of Commons Hansard, Debates for
19th April 2002
Second Reading Carriage of
Guide Dogs Bill
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow):
I beg to move,
That the Bill be now read a Second time.
My Bill is straightforward
and simple, but it deals with a problem that seriously affects a number of
people. It amends the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to ensure that the
owners of working dogs are not refused the use of minicabs by drivers when they
want to travel with their dogs.
I do not think that there
is disagreement in the House about the need to deal with discrimination against
people who suffer from disabilities. I served on the Standing Committee for the
Disability Discrimination Act, which came into force under the last Conservative
Government and was piloted through the House by the right hon. Member for
Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the former leader of the Conservative party.
We all agree about the need
for such legislation. Members from four parties are among the sponsors of the
Bill. An early-day motion that I tabled on the same subject attracted almost 90
signatures from hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is no great
controversy about the need for the measure.
Last year, section 37 of
the Disability Discrimination Act came into force; it implemented a requirement
on licensed taxi drivers to carry guide dogs. There was no great problem in
bringing that into force; it introduced a welcome change. However, it left a
gap: many guide dog owners continue to suffer discrimination. The problem is
that section 37 of the Act does not cover private hire vehicles—minicabs.
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon):
I very much welcome my hon. Friend's measure. In my
outer-London constituency—my hon. Friend's constituency is similar—the number of
black cabs is somewhat disproportionate to the number of private hire vehicles.
People are much more reliant on private hire vehicles. Correspondence from my
constituents shows that there is a problem in my constituency and for that
reason I offer my hon. Friend my best wishes for his Bill.
Mr. Gerrard:
I thank my hon. Friend. He is right: those of us who
represent outer-London constituencies know that although black cabs exist, they
are relatively few and far between. Throughout much of the country, licensed
private hire vehicles are the main form of such transport.
The problem was first drawn to
my attention by my constituent, Mr. Alan Powell, the chair of the Waltham Forest
talking newspaper association. He got in touch with me after he had experienced
problems in getting cabs. I then came across several other cases. The Guide Dogs
for the Blind Association has drawn the attention of several hon. Members to one
example. I shall read briefly from the account of what happened to that
individual. She said:
"I needed to collect my three children from school
and started phoning for a car at 3 pm. None of the cabs called would take me
because of my guide dog. In the end I called nine companies and they all said
they didn't have a driver who would take a guide dog. In the end I had to call
the school and ask them to look after the children. Eventually I got a bus and
got to school one hour late."
I recently spoke to someone who
had been shopping at Tesco. They filled up their trolley and then rang a car
firm that they had used several times, but the firm said that it had no drivers
who could take them so they had great difficulty getting home. In another recent
example, a person travelled from the area in which he lived—where the local
authority required minicabs to carry guide dogs—to an area that he did not know.
When he arrived at the station, the car that he had booked refused to take his
dog. He was stuck at the station in a strange place where he knew nobody, and
was unable to get to his destination.
Guide dog owners rely more than
most of us on that form of transport. In a survey conducted last year, one in
seven people who owned guide dogs said that private hire vehicles—minicabs—were
their most commonly used form of transport. One in five said that they used a
taxi or private hire vehicle at least once a week. Two thirds said that that
type of transport was easier for them to use than other forms of transport, and
it is fairly easy to understand why. It is door-to-door transport, it makes it
possible to take a companion if necessary, and of course, those who have an
assistance dog rely on it and need to have it with them.
In the current system, the
licensing of private hire vehicles is the responsibility of local authorities—in
England and Wales, at least. In Northern Ireland the Department of the
Environment is responsible. In London, of course, no one is currently
responsible. Private hire vehicles in London are not licensed at all, but they
will be, shortly, through the Public Carriage Office, and Transport for London,
which has been undertaking a consultation and is inclined to include carriage of
guide dogs in the licensing conditions.
The fact that it is a local
authority responsibility creates problems, because what I hope most people would
agree should be a universal condition, is not universal but depends on the local
authority. To be fair, a great many local authorities have decided to include in
their licensing conditions a requirement to carry a guide dog, but some will
not, and some are not interested or say that there is no problem in their area
because no one has complained. I do not think that that is a terribly accurate
reflection of the existence or absence of a problem.
More than 250 of 374 local
authorities have now introduced a requirement for a private hire vehicle to
carry a guide dog. Things are moving; two-thirds of local authorities have taken
that step. The problem is the remaining one third. The difficulty is that there
is a patchwork. When the local authority in whose area a person lives has the
licensing requirement but a neighbouring authority does not, that person may
travel a short distance and find themselves unable to return by private hire
vehicle. Moreover, how is anyone supposed to know when they are travelling
whether the local authority in whose area they happen to be has introduced the
licensing requirement? Some of the incidents that I mentioned earlier arose from
precisely that problem. They had travelled to an area with which they were not
familiar and then found that they had a problem and were facing very serious
difficulties. That problem would be dealt with quite simply by making the
requirement mandatory and national.
All sorts of objections are
raised. Some people say that dogs create problems in cars. I suspect that some
of those people probably never have much contact with a guide dog to see how
they behave. Some local authorities say that they have a lot of Muslim cab
drivers in their area, who would not be prepared to travel with dogs.
Suggestions are made that Muslims do not like dogs, are afraid of them or have
problems with cleanliness. Many of those problems are more perceived than real.
The matter is relevant to my
local authority, which has the biggest Pakistani community in London and where a
lot of cab drivers are Muslim. However, after the incidents that I mentioned,
which caused the local press to take up the issue, representatives from the
mosque made it very clear that religion was not the barrier, and should not be
used as a reason for refusing to introduce the licensing condition. During last
year's discussions in Blackburn about bringing in the licensing condition,
Mohammed Narwan, chairman of the Blackburn and Darwen's Private Hire Drivers
Association—he is a Muslim—said:
The Guide Dogs for the Blind
Association, which has discussed the issue with major UK Muslim organisations,
is satisfied that no real problem exists.
The issue needs to be approached
with some sensitivity. When licensing conditions are introduced, discussions
should take place with drivers, so that they are aware of the factors involved.
In fact, the problem affects a fairly small number of people. There are only
about 5,000 guide dog owners in the country, so the impact on cab drivers would
be relatively small, but for those owners this is a major issue that affects
their daily lives. To ensure that the Bill works and that we get it right, it is
clear that we need to look at certain parts of it in some detail. The system
needs to work properly, and we may need to consider not only drivers but
operators. When someone telephones, they speak not to the driver but to the
operator, so both driver and operator need to be aware that they must follow
licensing regulations.
The Bill enjoys a lot of support
from the major associations involved—the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association,
the Royal National Institute for the Blind and Hearing Dogs for Deaf People—and
I hope that it will find further support.
|
