|
Extract from House of Commons Hansard, 19th July
2002
Report Stage of the Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage
of Guide Dogs) Bill
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow):
This has been an interesting debate, and I shall try not
to repeat what has already been covered by the speeches from both Front Bench
spokesmen, because they have already dealt with some of the points that came up
in the debate. Sometimes during the debate it has felt as if we were discussing
something totally new that had never been thought of before, and that none of
the potential problems had ever been considered. On the contrary, since the
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was passed we have had legislation imposing
exactly the same obligations on the licensed cab trade as are proposed in the
Bill. A great many local authorities already include the provisions in the Bill
in their licensing requirements for private hire vehicles, and require drivers
to take guide dogs.
The problem is not that
that does not happen, but that it does not happen everywhere. There is
inconsistency between one local authority area and another, so that people with
assistance dogs, especially when they are travelling away from home, cannot be
confident that they will be able to use private hire vehicles. The problem is
the lack of consistency across the country.
The attempts that we have
heard to construct convoluted scenarios for the problems that guide dogs might
cause ignore the fact that we already have experience, and we are not dealing
with something completely new. We may be spending too much time trying to find
all the extreme examples of things that might go wrong with the Bill, when the
fundamental issue is really very simple: rights of access for people with
disabilities.
Mr. Gardiner:
Does my hon. Friend agree that our hon. Friend the Member
for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) perfectly illustrated the fact that the only way one
can tell whether a minicab driver has run over a assistance dog or a lawyer is
that there would be skid marks in front of the assistance dog?
Mr. Gerrard:
It would be dangerous for me to go down that road now,
because I do not wish to upset the lawyers, especially while we are still
debating the new clause and the amendments.
I want to address some of the
issues related to new clause 1 and amendment No. 2 concerning damage, and dogs
being excitable. A lot of them have already been covered; the legal advice that
I have been given makes it clear that there is nothing to prevent someone from
suing now, and the Minister agrees. Again, we have the benefit of the experience
of the licensing authorities that already make that requirement. In the very
unlikely event of a guide dog causing damage, there is nothing to stop people
suing now, so it is unnecessary to add the provisions to the Bill.
Clearly it is important that
excitable dogs should not make cars dangerous to drive, but as several hon.
Members have already explained, the very nature of assistance dogs makes that
scenario highly unlikely. We should also remember that private hire vehicle
drivers are used to dealing with difficult situations and customers.
Unfortunately for them, that is part of the business.
It is important to remember what
the Bill actually says. There have been several references to the idea that a
passenger would have the right to insist on being taken.
That is not strictly accurate, because clause 1 says
that it will be an offence for the operator or the driver to refuse a booking
for the sole reason that the person is accompanied by an assistance dog. That
does not mean that someone with an assistance dog is in a privileged position
compared with any other person trying to make a booking. The Bill simply brings
parity.
There is nothing to say that a
private hire vehicle driver has to accept every booking offered. If a driver is
offered a booking to the airport and he does not want to drive all the way
across London to Heathrow, he can say no. The Bill will simply stop
discrimination. The driver and the operator will not be able to say, "I'm not
going to take you because you've got your assistance dog with you." If, in the
very unlikely circumstance that the driver turned up for a booking and the dog
was unruly or the passenger drunk or abusive, there would not be the slightest
problem if the driver refused to take them for that reason. It is an offence
only if he refuses to take them because the dog is an assistance dog.
The definition of an assistance
dog is the same as in section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It
works for black cabs, and I see no reason why it should not work for private
hire vehicles. The very detailed guidance issued by the Department to drivers,
people with disabilities and the local authorities, which are the licensing
authorities, covers the definitions clearly.
It would be a mistake to look
for additional reasons for exemption. A number of issues were raised in relation
to exemptions, such as phobias and medical grounds. The guidance issued under
section 37 of the 1995 Act to licensing authorities for black cabs specifically
refers to drivers having severe asthma aggravated by contact with dogs,
allergies or acute phobias. Those are given in the guidance as the sort of
reasons that would allow a driver to apply for exemption. The guidance also
makes it clear that the driver would be expected to produce to the licensing
authority the medical evidence required for such an exemption.
People have asked what is the
point of the provision on having regard to the physical characteristics of the
private hire vehicle in proposed section 37A(6). This relates to the driver's
medical condition. As with black cabs, if a driver claims that he cannot have a
dog in his cab because he is allergic, questions about the physical
characteristics of the vehicle become relevant when considering whether a
medical exemption should be granted. Is there a partition between the passengers
and the driver, for example? Do the physical characteristics of the vehicle have
a bearing on the medical condition that is being claimed?
We should get the scale of the
exemption into perspective. I believe that so far three exemptions have been
granted to drivers of black cabs. This will not be a huge problem—vast numbers
of people will not suddenly require exemptions. We should recognise the scale of
the problem and approach it with common sense. It affects about 5,000 to 6,000
people who own guide dogs—they are the people who suffer problems, not the
drivers. However, there are about 150,000 drivers, and the average driver will
never have to deal with this situation, or only extremely rarely.
I suspect that anyone who uses
private hire vehicles, as I quite frequently do in my constituency, will soon
realise which firms are reliable, which give a good service and they will use
them. People who own assistance dogs will quickly learn where to go, and a
pattern will emerge. I am sure that this already happens in areas that have
licensing arrangements. Drivers who are happy to take assistance dogs will
become known to customers and will frequently take them, while others will
hardly notice any difference.
Some of the amendments are
unnecessary, as they cover points that are already dealt with in the Bill; for
example, the ability of a driver or operator to sue for damage if necessary, or
to refuse carriage provided that the reason for refusal is not simply the
assistance dog—he can certainly refuse to take an abusive or unruly passenger
whether or not they are using an assistance dog.
Some of the points raised about
exemptions and definitions may not be included in the Bill, but they are already
in practice under section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act and provisions
for black cabs. We are familiar with them. We do not want to introduce
inconsistency; what works for black cabs should work perfectly well for private
hire vehicles and it makes sense to amend the Act in the form currently taken by
the Bill to achieve that consistency for different classes of vehicle, rather
than to make that aspect more complex. We should not look for problems that do
not exist.
Sir Sydney Chapman:
I have listened with interest and at length to the
debate. It is good that we have held the debate because it has brought out
certain problems that might be faced. However, I am entirely persuaded by the
hon. Gentleman and the eloquence on both sides of the House, not least from the
Front-Bench speakers, so I shall withdraw the new clause. I understand that if
that is accepted by the House, amendment No. 2 will fall so I shall be in the
happy position of knowing that a dropped apostrophe and a split infinitive are
no longer in danger of getting on to our statute book.
I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by
leave, withdrawn.
Debate on New Amendments
Mr. Gerrard:
The amendments are straightforward but important. As
originally drafted, the Bill did not apply to Northern Ireland and Scotland
because of their devolved powers. However, it is of some importance that we try
to extend the provisions across the whole United Kingdom.
The Northern Ireland Assembly
could have dealt with this matter but it would have taken some time. In fact, a
couple of weeks ago, the Assembly unanimously agreed to urge us to amend the
Bill so that its provisions would extend to Northern Ireland. That is the
purpose of amendment No. 3. The Northern Ireland Department of the Environment
will make detailed regulations for Northern Ireland so that there are parallels
between licensed taxis and private hire vehicles.
Amendment No. 1 deals with
Scotland and will correct a drafting error made in Committee when a clause was
inserted to extend the Bill's provisions to Scotland but, unfortunately, omitted
anything that made it an offence in Scotland not to comply with the provisions.
We thus had the rather odd situation whereby a Bill applied to Scotland but if
people chose not to obey it nothing would have happened. Amendment No. 1 puts
that straight and ensures that, as well as the Bill applying to Scotland, there
is also an offence for not complying with its provisions.
I hope that the House will
support these amendments, which will give us consistency throughout the whole
UK.
Mr. Jamieson:
My hon. Friend has spoken to the amendments very
effectively.
Amendment No. 1 is necessary to
ensure that Scotland has parity with England and Wales in enforcing the
provisions of the Bill. The Bill, which now extends to Scotland, amends the
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and places a duty on drivers of private hire
cars to take guide dogs and other assistance dogs and not to make a charge for
doing so.
Enforcement measures are an
integral part of the process and, as the Bill is drafted, there is now some
doubt about the ability of Scottish local authorities and police to enforce its
provisions. They felt that the Bill needed to be corrected and express provision
made for this purpose; to do otherwise would render the Bill impotent in
Scotland.
The amendment replicates the
current offence relating to the duty placed on taxi drivers in Scotland, the
penalty for which, on summary conviction, is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the
standard scale.
The Bill has been extended to
Scotland and I am pleased to say that amendment No. 3 has been tabled to ensure
that it extends to Northern Ireland as well. I am certain that all of us in the
House would agree that disabled people who rely on assistance dogs in any part
of the United Kingdom should enjoy the same rights as everyone else when they
travel by private hire vehicle, and the Bill would now secure those rights.
At this point it may be
appropriate for me to state, on behalf of the Government, the position of the
Bill with regard to the European convention on human rights. It is the view of
the Government that the provisions of the Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of
Guide Dogs etc.) Bill are compatible with the European convention on human
rights.
Amendment agreed to.
Order for Third Reading read.
Mr. Gerrard:
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I shall be brief because this
morning's debate has ranged over most of the issues that the Bill covers, but I
want to put on record my thanks to all the hon. Members who have supported the
Bill. Since first introducing it, I have received support from hon. Members from
all parties, and I am extremely grateful to them for their support. I thank my
hon. Friend the Minister and his officials for their help, without which I am
sure I would not have been able to deal with all the required drafting details.
I also thank the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the RNIB, which,
again, have been very supportive in getting the Bill drafted and, I hope,
accepted by the House.
Some significant changes have
been made in the Bill since its Second Reading. On Second Reading, clear
arguments were made about the principles and the need for a Bill to bring
consistency across the country and between black cabs and private hire vehicles.
In Committee, we had to make sure that the Bill would work, which required some
changes to ensure that operators, as well as drivers, were covered. Of course,
amendments were made on Report to extend the provisions to Scotland and Northern
Ireland.
I am pleased that we have been
able to make progress. As I said in an earlier contribution, the Bill will not
affect huge numbers of people. It will affect perhaps 5,000 to 6,000 people, but
it will be enormously important to those people. People who rely on assistance
dogs rely much more on private hire vehicles and taxis than the average person
does, and it is enormously important for them to be able to travel freely and to
know that they can take their dogs with them. So the Bill makes a valuable
contribution to helping people with assistance dogs in their daily lives. I am
sure that that is the view of hon. Members in all parties, and I am grateful to
them for all their support, which has enabled me to reach this point with the
Bill. |
