HC Deb 12 April 1994 vol 241 cc154-7

'[].—(1) A person commits an offence if he—

  1. (a) loiters or solicits in a street or public place, or
  2. (b) solicits from a motor vehicle in a street or public place for the purpose of procuring a passenger for a hire and reward vehicle.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. (3) In section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Arrestable Offence) at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted— (h) an offence under section [] of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Touting from or for a vehicle). (4) For the purposes of this section— hire and reward vehicle" means a vehicle used or intended to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, whether or not licensed as such, other than a licensed taxi or public service vehicle; licensed taxi" means—
  1. (i) in relation to the City of London and Metropolitan Police District, a vehicle licensed under section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869, and
  2. (ii) in relation to any other district in England and Wales, a vehicle licensed by the local authority for that district under section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act or any similar enactment; and
public service vehicle" has the meaning given in section 1 of the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981.'.—[Mr. Bendall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Vivian Bendall (Ilford, North)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I declare that I represent the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association in the House; that interest is recorded in the Register of Members' interests.

For the first time tonight, we have the opportunity of putting right an injustice—something that I believe has been wrong for a very long time. Let me deal first with the reasons behind the new clause. First, it is true to say that it has received all-party support. There have been more than 70 signatures in support of it.

New clause 66 would do away with the injustice that has existed for a long time with regard to touting. Touting is illegal but it is a civil, not a criminal, offence. Following my discussions with the Minister for Transport in London, who is here tonight, I believe I can say that he is not unhappy with the new clause. From other discussions, I understand that the Home Office is also not unhappy with it.

There has been tremendous support for the new clause from various elements of the cab trade and elsewhere. For example, the graded private hire companies, the Metropolitan police, in the form of the Public Carriage Office, and the Consumers Association have all supported it with a view to seeing an end to the injustice and even abuse that often befalls people travelling in certain vehicles. Most important, the British Transport police have also been extremely concerned that they do not have the necessary powers to deal with the increasing violence and aggression against tourists of those plying for hire. Many of the problems occur outside stations and clubs where innocent people are often preyed on by those touting illegally for business. New clause 66 would outlaw the problem, just as prostitution and kerb crawling have been dealt with in the past.

In view of the signs that the Home Office and the Department of Transport have given me, I hope that, even if they are not over-happy with the wording of the new clause—I am not wedded to it—they will be able to give a firm undertaking that the principle will be accepted in another place. I should be happy to accept such an undertaking.

We have a unique opportunity to close the door against three major problems. First, we have the opportunity to make women safer in hired vehicles. Many women have been raped or abused in such vehicles. Secondly, we have the opportunity to make hired vehicles safer. Many people do not realise that when they travel in them they are uninsured, which is a major worry. We also have the opportunity to help the black cab system, which is recognised as the finest in the world.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is looking at me; I am coming to the end of my remarks. Finally, we also have the opportunity to end the abuse of the social security system. Raids on stations have led to the discovery that many people who work in the mini-cab trade are claiming social security. Such people would be caught, which would save the taxpayer and the Exchequer a considerable amount of money. For those reasons, I hope that the House will accept new clause 66.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)

My friend who moved the new clause has my complete support. Twenty years ago, when I was a member of Sheffield city council, I began to move in the same direction. It seemed wrong that people could pick up passengers without being insured, thereby putting those passengers at risk. One could not be sure about the quality of the vehicle or the driver or his safety as a person. I understand from what I have been told by the Minister that the new clause finds favour with the Government and, 20 years on, I feel satisfied that a wrong is about to be righted. If the Minister says that it is fine and that he will change the wording, I shall go to bed a much happier man. It is not very often that one makes a dream come true, but tonight we may well do just that. If the Minister nods his head now, I shall shut up and sit down.

Mr. Maclean

indicated assent.

Mr. Bermingham

He has nodded; we have done it; I thank my hon. Friends.

12 midnight

Mr. Maclean

The purpose of the new clause is the laudable one of getting rid of the problem of people touting for passengers in cars not licensed as taxis. It is a serious problem and one that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London has seen for himself on the streets of some of our provincial cities as well as London.

There are two aspects to the problem. The most serious is the tout who preys on strangers and tourists, especially at our important stations and international airports. These men set out to fleece their victims. If they protest, passengers are likely to lose their luggage— if not worse. The police at London stations and at Heathrow struggle to deal with the problem in the present legal context.

Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean

Very briefly.

Mr. Enright

Will the Minister make it clear that, in talking about tourists, he is talking not merely about people from foreign countries but about people from my constituency who have been done by the very drivers to whom he refers when they have come to London?

Mr. Maclean

Clearly, a tourist is everyone else except ourselves when we are travelling.

The other aspect is in relation to circumstances in which touts who do not own the cars concerned offer the services of minicabs or private hire vehicles in the street or in which the vehicle drivers offer their services outside pubs and clubs at closing time. The passenger who accepts a ride in those circumstances is at risk. By acting as an unlicensed taxi, the driver has almost certainly abrogated his insurance and if anything goes wrong, the passenger will have to rely on the good will of the insurance company or, failing that, the agreement between the Department of Transport and the Motor Insurers Bureau. The vehicles in which they ride may not be up to the standard of a taxi and the driver may not know where he is going or the best way to get there.

We commend the principles behind the new clause, but before we can advise the House to accept it, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London needs to be sure that it will do all that it seeks to do and no more. My hon. Friend especially wants to ensure that touts at airports and railway stations would be caught and we may need to define the terms "street" and "public place" used in the clause to ensure that we catch them.

Representations have been made to us to the effect that, as drafted, the new clause could have an adverse effect on legitimately licensed private hire vehicles. Outside London, such vehicles usually carry signs identifying themselves for what they are. Their drivers could have problems under the present wording if they were parked at the roadside or were in a public place between jobs, especially if they were sitting in the car. How could they show that they were not loitering for the purposes of procuring a passenger, when they were carrying a sign proclaiming that they were available for hire—even though it is by telephone booking?

To cut out any more debate, I ask my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) if he will withdraw the new clause and discuss its contents with my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London with a view to a more satisfactory clause being tabled in the other place, which would win wide support from both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Bendall

I am happy to do so as long as the new clause is accepted in principle. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Teddy Taylor

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As new clause 68 raises complex and difficult issues relating to religious belief, and as the Minister of State has kindly agreed to have a personal meeting with those seeking the protection of the new clause, I invite the House to agree that no hon. Member should seek to move it.

Forward to