§ Order for Second Reading read.
1.40 pm§ 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. GerrardI 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 871 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 872 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:
People should be able to travel in private hire vehicles with their…dogs free of charge.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.
§ Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)The hon. Gentleman mentions hearing dogs and he is absolutely right to do so. That issue needs to be highlighted, because when we think of guide dogs, we inevitably think of visual impairment. We need also to bring hearing impairment into the network that he describes.
§ Mr. GerrardThe hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but if he looks at the definition of assistance dogs in section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which applies to taxis, he will find that it covers not only guide dogs for the blind but hearing dogs and other working dogs.
This simple measure will make a lot of difference to people who rely on dogs for their daily lives, and I hope that the House will support it.
§ Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)This private Member's Bill, which would oblige drivers of private hire vehicles to carry the guide dogs of disabled people without imposing an extra charge, closes a loophole in previous legislation. The omission of private hire vehicles from the 2001 legislation, which obliged taxis but not minicabs to accept guide dogs, created an anomaly and a confusing and patchy service for visually impaired people—a point made strongly at the time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), whose social conscience is legendary.
That confusion can only he heightened by the fact that 312 of the 374 local licensing authorities outside London and Northern Ireland that are empowered to impose such an obligation have not done so. It therefore seems clear that national legislation is needed to contend with that inconsistency, so that we can bring the majority up to the standard of the minority.
For those in the United Kingdom who are blind or visually impaired, the assistance of a guide dog can make a remarkable difference to their independence and mobility—a point made strongly by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. I am conscious of the shortage of time, so I shall not recount a heart-rending case, described in the Western Mail, of a blind man in Cardiff who spent half an evening—first on the street, and then on the telephone—trying to find a taxi home. Significantly, it was an Islamic taxi driver who finally came to collect him.
The Opposition therefore support in principle this private Member's measure to improve independence and mobility for blind and visually impaired people, but several practical hurdles may have to be overcome in Committee. The obligation on drivers would be difficult to police effectively, as it would rely on the willingness of local police to bring criminal charges against minicab drivers who flout their obligations. Moreover, how strictly will the term "private hire vehicle" be defined in the new legislation? How much will the situation in London be affected by Transport for London's recent consultation on minicab regulation?
As I have said, despite those obstacles to effective implementation, the Conservative party strongly supports this measure to increase the independence and quality of life of disabled people, including those who are deaf as well as those who are blind or visually impaired, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) said. The Opposition support the Bill and seek to give it a Second Reading.
§ Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton)When the current anomaly was first mentioned to me by one of my constituents—Mr. Robin Hutchinson, who happens to be the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association's head of communications—I was absolutely staggered that it existed. I was also staggered that cab companies and cab drivers were discriminating in this way; it is shocking and surprising that people should take such action.
The Bill is particularly welcome because it will remove a form of discrimination that many hon. Members perhaps never thought existed. That is a lesson to us all about how such discrimination can come about and how damaging it can be to people's ability to lead independent lives. I 874 know that about the problem not only because of the examples that have been cited already, but because of the problems that my constituents have brought to my attention.
When we consider regulation, we often ask, "Okay, there may be a problem, but is this the right way to go about it?" The Bill is clearly the right way. Its provisions can be implemented and have been shown to work in local authorities throughout the country, and they will produce no practical problems for the industry. I hope that both sides of the House will support it and that it will make rapid progress.
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who spoke from the Front Bench, was kind enough to make some complimentary remarks about me, which in itself is rare in the Chamber, so I treasure every one.
There is a tiny track record on such issues. I participated and took an interest in the legislation on minicabs, which I forced into Committee, where it was amended some 50 times because it was so bad. I tabled an amendment—it failed—in an attempt to give disabled people rights of access to minicabs. The Government resisted that amendment at the time, so, to my disappointment, it did not find its way into the legislation.
§ Mr. HayesI should like my right hon. Friend to clarify what he has said—I cannot believe that I heard him correctly. Is he suggesting that the Government resisted a similar measure to that now proposed, with all-party support, to give disabled people such access and the freedom that results from it?
§ Mr. ForthWell, the proposal was different at the time. I proposed that minicabs should provide access for disabled people. This measure is different, although it is related. I am only too happy to blame the Government when blame is deserved, but we are dealing with a slightly different thing on this occasion.
The Bill strikes me as being essential, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on introducing it. It is a model private Member's Bill—it is brief, succinct, focused and, I hope, uncontroversial. Therefore, I hope that it is something to which the House can give its support. I welcome the opportunity to discuss it briefly, and I am happy to take part in the debate.
All I want to do is flag up a point that has already been made a couple of times: the Bill will need to be considered in some detail in Committee. Although we all want a measure of this kind, and therefore give it our broad support, I hope that the Standing Committee will take a little time to consider it in detail and satisfy itself that the duties that are being imposed are reasonable and achievable. For example, the reference to the licensing authority giving exemptions, if appropriate, on medical grounds, gives me slight pause for thought. If the medical grounds are relevant for, I presume, the driver of the vehicle, may they not also, in some circumstances, be relevant to those who might use the vehicle subsequently or to other persons in the vehicle? I mention that as one possibility that we would have to consider. I do not want to dwell on it, and I am happy to give my broad support 875 to the Bill at this stage. I hope, however, as has been indicated, that it will be given proper and detailed consideration in Standing Committee.
§ 2 pm
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble)First, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) for introducing this Bill, which seeks to end a profound injustice experienced by many disabled people who want to use minicabs. I was aware, of course of his commitment to disability rights, and he was a member of the Committee that considered the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. He also has the rare distinction of already having got a private Member's Bill on to the statute book; this will be his second.
The Government are committed to establishing comprehensive and enforceable rights for disabled people. Access to transport services is a key element in delivering on that commitment, and there is no doubt that, for many disabled people, private hire vehicles—or minicabs as they are more usually known—are a vital part of the transport mix. It is therefore deplorable that disabled people should be denied access to those services because of a reluctance on the part of drivers to accept guide dogs or other dogs trained to assist them—hearing dogs and other types of dog—particularly when those dogs are essential to their independent mobility.
Hon. Members have already set out much of the legislative background to this Bill and to the problems that we have encountered. As there are still many matters that hon. Members want to discuss, I shall not go back over those issues, and I shall come directly to the Bill.
The Government support the Bill because we fully agree with its basic aim: people with guide dogs and other assistance dogs should not be barred from using minicabs because of their animals. This is an issue on which my Department receives a significant number of representations both from groups and individuals.
It may be of interest to the House if I read out a few extracts from some of the correspondence, which gives an idea of the kind of discrimination that disabled people experience, and, also, of how they feel about it. One person wrote:
Four times now I have been refused getting into private hire cars with my guide dog Brandy. It makes me so mad and angry being treated like a freak because of my use of a guide dog. My dog has given me a lot of independence and freedom to go out and about, without the help of family and friends to rely on.People are not just refused access to minicabs; in some instances, they have been charged for the use of a minicab for their dog as well as for themselves. We received a letter from a group that represents disabled people in Leicestershire:Recently we have received complaints of the growing charges made to carry guide and other service dogs. Some want to charge ten pence while this week we had a complaint that a firm charged a 876 guide dog owner £2 to carry her dog, to see her husband in hospital who had just had a heart attack. This is more than they charge to carry extra people and luggage, this problem is growing now and they know they are not covered by the DDA.Another blind person who was asked for £2 to carry a guide dog realistically pointed out:Other people are not charged a penalty for carrying shopping or luggage, nor are mums with buggies, so why discriminate against a blind person with a guide dog?The Government support the Bill. As everyone on both sides of the House has said, its principles are absolutely right. However, there are difficulties with it as it stands. I shall outline them so that hon. Members understand what they are, but I do not think that they will present an insurmountable obstacle.
The Bill is based on the existing provisions in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and it assumes that the licensing regimes for the two transport services are one and the same. That is not the case. The licensing regimes for taxis and private hire vehicles are substantially different.
In the case of taxis, the driver himself accepts a hiring. Section 37 of the 1995 Act recognises the fact that a licensed taxi driver plying for hire is compelled to accept a hiring normally within the area of the licensing authority. Therefore, if a blind person accompanied by a dog wanted to go beyond the local licensing area, the driver could refuse. The legislation simply means that the presence of a guide dog is not reasonable grounds for refusing a compellable hiring.
The problem with using the same approach for minicabs is that the method of hiring in the private hire vehicle legislation is completely different. Minicab operators, not the drivers, decide whether to accept any given hire on a commercial basis. For example, they might decide to refuse all airport jobs on a particular day, because they have made the commercial decision to deploy all available minicabs on short journeys on that day. An operator with a fleet of up-market limousines might decide not to do high street shopping jobs. The operator would not offend against private hire vehicle legislation in making such a decision.
Unfortunately, the wording of the new proposed section 37A(1) under the Bill suggests that the driver's duty to carry dogs applies only once the vehicle has been hired. As an operator is under no obligation to accept a hiring, it might never come to the attention of a driver, in which case the Bill will not achieve its aim.
The Bill therefore requires amendment if it is to achieve its aim. It will have to consider the role of the operator as well as that of the driver. We will be happy to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow to ensure that such issues are covered in the Bill. With those provisos—which I believe my hon. Friend is happy to accept—the Government are happy to support the Bill. We look forward to seeing it on the statute book and to it giving fuller rights to disabled people.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).