Minicabs

HL Deb 21 October 1992 vol 539 cc826-42

8.16 p.m.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to improve the safety of users of minicabs in London.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, that I am asking this Question in your Lordships' House this evening will surprise no one. In February 1989 I moved the Second Reading of a local authorities Bill which included in its provisions the licensing of minicabs. That was referred to a Select Committee and considered fully by it. It returned to the whole House and was given a Third Reading in February 1990. Later, it fell in the Commons.

Since then I have asked questions on the subject, which concerns me greatly, and I was pleased that a working party was set up to consider the matter. The report of the working party was published as your Lordships' House rose for the Summer Recess, so that this is the first opportunity to pursue the matter further and to ask the Government to set in train legislation to control minicabs in London.

Everywhere but in the London area controls already exist on private hire vehicles, but the situation is not the same here. Of course, only in London do the black cab drivers have the "knowledge", as it is called. That means that they know every street and how to get there and they have to pass a test to prove that. It may take two to three years to acquire the knowledge. Drivers who satisfy the Public Carriage Office and pass the test become licensed hackney carriage drivers. A so-called green badge is awarded to a driver licensed to operate in the whole of the London area. A yellow badge driver is licensed only for a particular area or zone. In reality, the badges are brass and they have either a green or yellow line on them.

The public have lived with the hazardous situation of no control whatever over private hire vehicles, mainly minicabs, as the public know them, for years. Crimes have been committed and the public are justified in demanding safe standards in all forms of public transport. Apart from crimes against the person, which are at a level which cause great anxiety, there is the added hazard that vehicles are sometimes of such a poor standard that they could not possibly pass an MoT inspection and, therefore, they carry no insurance. The driver is frequently unlicensed and may have a relevant criminal conviction which makes him unfit to be a licensed cab driver.

In 1989 anxiety was expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that local authorities might not be the right bodies to be the licensing authorities. In that same debate, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who I see is here this evening, also expressed reservations about the proposition that I was putting forward for local authorities to license black cabs and minicabs in London. Now, local authorities do not want the job in London. That has become quite clear from recent votes on the Westminster council and I understand that other councils, such as Greenwich, never wanted the job, even at the time of the last debate.

Time has shown too that local authorities are not the ideal organisations for the job. Black cabs are licensed by the Public Carriage Office and I am convinced that the same body must be the licensing authority for all London cabs and hire cars so that a uniform standard will eventually be achieved. By that I do not mean uniform standards of the vehicles themselves. Many black cabs are now—and by the end of the century I believe all of them will need to be—specially designed for invalid carriages. However, for the volume of transport that we need there is room for other vehicles, as I believe drivers of black taxis now accept. Again, it would be limited to the area and use.

Two years ago drivers of black taxis were opposed to extending licensing to minicabs. I detect a change in their attitude and believe that they accept that it is unwise and unsafe for 40,000 completely uncontrolled and unidentifiable vehicles to be carrying fare-paying passengers in the London area.

Black cabs are not themselves entirely without fault, as I have often said before. Many people I know have told me that if one lives south of the river one has little hope of obtaining a black cab for the journey home, particularly late at night. Even in the past few days drivers of black cabs have agreed with that statement. The present economic situation is making them slightly more willing to go further. But we hope that times will improve and we may then be back in exactly the same position.

I agree with the point made to me by the drivers that it is important for there to be a levelling up rather than a levelling down. Even with my proposed scheme I should want to see a different type of badge for those people who were registered immediately but only on a provisional basis. We must have licensed, identifiable drivers; licensed, insured and fit vehicles; tested and reliable meters with set maximum charges. Those charges may of course be different in the case of a chauffeured limousine hire service, the type we think of as being at the top end of the private hire market. There may be some room for variation in that regard.

I was interested to learn that even in black cabs the meter shows the maximum charge rather than the minimum. A black cab could make special arrangements with a hospital, school or organisation, for which they provide a regular service, to provide that service at a lower fee. But how often do we hear stories of tourists, unaware of what the correct fare should be, being fleeced by unscrupulous drivers? Reports and statistics show that in many cases the greatest cause of arguments and assaults in minicabs is arguments over fares.

The vehicle and the driver must be identifiable by a member of the public. Was it not in Forest Gate that the tragedy occurred when a legitimate call was intercepted by a criminal who presented himself to pick up the fare and the victim had no idea that the car was not the one she was expecting. By providing a definite registered plate on the car a customer could be told what vehicle would be coming. The vehicle could then be identified before the customer entered the car. Elderly and invalid customers come to know their drivers well when they have them on a regular run and thereby establish a valuable rapport.

Clearly there is a need for the transport that minicabs provide. If there were not that need 40,000 of them would not be in business. The answer therefore must be to devise a system whereby those people now driving could register at once but be given a date by which time they would need to pass a "knowledge" test on either a local or all-London basis, in the same way as years ago people who had ridden motorbikes for many years, suddenly found that they had to pass a test by a certain date or give up driving.

I am delighted that we have a Minister of Transport for London—Steve Norris—with special transport interest and knowledge. He will need to work out the fine details. I do not intend to take your Lordships' time to go into detail tonight. I merely want to establish the principle of need.

I believe the point will be made tonight—it was certainly made in our previous debates—that the proprietors of reputable hire car firms should be given some kind of discretion and control over licences. That is perhaps interesting and possibly a good idea. However, I should like also to see the licensing of individuals. I do not want to see a monopoly or power-base created only for people who own fleets of hire cars. Many minicab drivers, and indeed many drivers of black cabs, are individuals who own and drive their own vehicles.

A few drivers may not register in the way I suggest. Among them will be those whose vehicles are unfit, those who are disqualified drivers or those with relevant recent criminal convictions. If licensing does no more than weed out those dangerous vehicles and unlicensed drivers, it will have achieved quite a lot. The good, honest, reliable minicab drivers, of whom there are many, must welcome recognition and an opportunity to show their reliability.

My hope would be for an immediate registration system with appropriate area restrictions. That would mean no interruption in the working of minicabs and we would retain continuity of the full service. Neither the service to the public nor the employment of the drivers would be affected. But the public would be afforded the added safety and protection that they deserve.

8.27 p.m.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, tabled the Unstarred Question tonight and I should like to support her.

No woman in her right mind, no child, no elderly person, walks on the streets after dark for fear of being attacked. Nor would those women, children or elderly people care to wait at a deserted bus stop late at night, waiting for a bus that may not come; nor would they enter a strange car with a strange man, again for fear of being attacked. They—we—are afraid, and rightly so, prudently so.

We therefore turn to taxis for safety, convenience and for peace of mind. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, explained to us, in this country there are three standards of service provided by our taxis and minicabs. In London we have black hackney cabs which are licensed, inspected, regulated and tested by the Public Carriage Office of the Metropolitan Police. The result, as we know, is one of the most respected, knowledgeable and safe black taxi services in the world.

Outside London local authorities license and inspect both hackney carriages and private car hire vehicles—minicabs. Until April of this year such regulation and inspection was essentially limited to the state of the vehicle; that is, its roadworthiness, its cleanliness and its insurance. But thanks to an amendment to the Road Traffic Bill of June 1991—warmly supported by your Lordships—which permitted local authorities to require from the police evidence of criminal convictions, local authorities can now license and inspect, so to speak, the character of the driver alongside that of the vehicle. Both are equally important to public safety.

Nonetheless, outside London differences remain between black taxi cabs or hackney carriages, and private hire vehicles. Hackney carriages can ply for hire; they have regulated, registered and metered fares whereas minicabs have not and do not. But that outside London both vehicle and driver, whether hackney carriage or minicab, are fit and proper for their purpose, is undeniable. Local authorities and the citizens of this country whom they represent are truly and appropriately appreciative of that. The safety of the car and the integrity of the driver are now assured. Women outside London may safely use such cars late at night. The elderly may use them to go to hospital, children to go to school and the disabled to go home. As a result of your Lordships' report—here I would like to pay an especial tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who made the amendment possible—we all now, outside London, enjoy greater peace of mind. That is, if we live or work outside London.

For I said that we have a three-tier service; there is the black London hackney cab, licensed by the police, the provincial hackney and private hire car, licensed by the local authority, and the London minicab, licensed and inspected by just no one at all. Yet there are as many minicabs in London as there are in the whole of England and Wales put together. We estimate that there are between 40,000 and 50,000. Too often they are dirty, dubious and even downright dangerous. They are unregistered and uninspected. A man with a criminal record for grievous bodily harm, rape or serious drink and drug offences, whose only legitimate skill may be driving a car, who may be a stranger to London and whose car, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has said, may barely have scraped through the MoT, can set himself up in minutes as a minicab driver.

I stood outside a theatre the other night looking for a black taxicab. An unmarked private car cruised up outside the theatre. A young woman called out "Are you my minicab?" He said, "Yes". She got into the car and off they went. I hope he was. I hope that he was reputable. I hope that she was safe. In Norwich, Nottingham or outside London that car would have had on its door the name of its firm so the woman could have identified it visibly. She would have known that the driver was safe, proper and a decent and fit person to drive that car. She might have taken a chance in Norwich; she was certainly taking a risk in London which I believe to be quite unnecessary.

Why should London—London people, London women, London elderly, London frail and London children—be denied what the rest of the country now has, which is a safe, inspected, regulated and licensed minicab system? Why should London people alone expect to take risks? Why should I be able to use such a minicab safely outside London and take a chance inside London if I use one? Indeed, it is precisely because the private car firms and minicabs are being licensed, regulated and inspected outside London that those who would fail such tests, those at the dubious end of the market—that is to say, the undesirable and the unemployable—are now moving into the London trade.

We all know that the need for minicabs is much greater in London than elsewhere. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, rightly said, black taxis will not always work unsocial hours; they will not always go out to suburbs or to South London and they cannot always be found when it rains. We all know not only of the need but also that the demand for speedy and safe transport to jobs, appointments, hospitals, schools, hotels, railway stations or homes may well be greater in London than elsewhere. We all know, do we not? that it is impossible to walk across London because, unlike most cities, it is too large. One cannot drive one's own car in London because one cannot park, which is not the case in most of the rest of Britain. We all know that London is a more violent and dangerous place than most others in Britain. We all know that in London one takes more risks walking home late at night through deserted streets than in most other parts of Britain.

The need for minicabs, the danger of taking them and the lack of a safe alternative are factors which are all much greater in London than elsewhere. Yet it is precisely here that private car vehicles are unregistered and unlicensed.

I hope that your Lordships will not think I am overstating the case. Clearly, most minicab drivers are decent family men who are careful and courteous. They do not have to have a clean driving licence, but they probably do. They do not have to prove that they can drive safely, but they probably can. They do not have to show evidence of any knowledge of their locality, but they probably have some. They do not have to have adequate or good physical health, but we hope that they have. They do not have to be law abiding, but they probably are. They do not have to indicate whether they have any previous criminal convictions, although by the law of averages statistically perhaps about a third of them will have. They are probably good, decent and courteous law abiding family men.

But undeniably a substantial minority of minicab drivers should not be on the roads. We have paedophiles driving children to school; former burglars helping old people into their homes; convicted rapists driving women down unknown streets and men convicted of assault and grievous bodily harm taking the disabled to hospital. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, like myself, has met Diana Lamplugh and recognised and responded to the work she has done—has interviewed 1,000 people who use taxis and minicabs. About a fifth (199 of them) had experienced from minicab drivers dangerous driving or physical abuse. More horrifying still, is a figure which I could barely bring myself to believe, which comes from Scotland Yard. It indicates that a quarter of all stranger rape was associated with minicabs. That is a level of risk, violence and threat that we would tolerate nowhere else in the United Kingdom, and we should not tolerate it in London.

We do not have to tolerate it in London and why should we? What are the options? Self-regulation has failed because those who most readily accept it are the better and more reputable firms. Those who most need it, such as the cowboys and the marginals, are precisely those who do not regulate themselves. What are the options? First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has said, we could require all minicabs in London to come under the regulation of the Public Audit Office, which is analogous to the control imposed on black taxis, although there might be a problem of workload here for the police. There might also be a problem because of the flexible fares and flexible arrangements which the minicabs can offer. But that is one way forward.

Secondly, we could have a twin-track licensing system, with local authorities regulating minicabs in London as they do outside. Again, there is the problem of the workload and again, as the noble Baroness said, there may be a problem in achieving common standards. Thirdly, there is another option which I should like to suggest to your Lordships. I hope that the noble Viscount opposite will respond to it. It is to require all minicab drivers to operate from licensed premises rather as is done with heavy goods vehicles. The proprietor has to be registered and inspected by the police or the local authority and that is perhaps analogous to environmental health officers inspecting restaurants or factories right across the country. That proprietor would be held responsible for the streetworthiness of vehicles and for the drivers. He would be required to have the vehicles inspected and to ask for previous criminal convictions, if any. He would be regularly inspected. He would require the minicabs operating from his premises to carry an identifying sign on the door in the form of an external plate. Such 40,000 cabs might operate out of, say,1500 such premises or 50,60 or 70 from a London borough. That is a perfectly acceptable workload either for an individual London borough or for a joint committee of such boroughs. It may also be acceptable for the audit office of the police.

I recognise that there is no consensus within the trade as to what should be done. Understandably black taxis wish to protect the property of their knowledge and understandably the minicabs wish to protect the current deregulated and flexible system that they mostly now enjoy. However, there is almost complete consensus among users that registration is essential and that Londoners should no longer have to tolerate what no one else will tolerate. With the help of your Lordships we could and do now enjoy a safe and reputable minicab service outside London, thanks in part to your Lordships' own amendment made about 15 months ago. Londoners deserve nothing less. I hope that, as a result, your Lordships will support the Unstarred Question introduced by the noble Baroness this evening.

8.40 p.m.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I should first like to thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for asking this Question, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, from the city of Norwich. Both have produced excellent speeches on this subject. At one time I thought there was going to be variance and that I should have to make a longer speech, but I am now going to stick to my own speech, which will be extraordinarily brief. For over 20 years now attempts have been made by all parties to introduce legislation to control the private hire or minicab situation in London. It is well known that this is an area of transport where the total absence of control has led to a lowering of standards and increasing concern among the public.

The last time the matter came before your Lordships many spoke on behalf of the black taxi trade, because it was thought that controlling minicabs in some way implied the end of the black taxi. This is quite wrong and totally misleading. The black taxi in London provides a service that enjoys the highest reputation both with Londoners and visitors from abroad; it must be encouraged to continue to retain its preferential right to ply for hire in London. We are not suggesting that minicabs should ply for hire. However, this should in no way deflect anyone from dealing with the 40,000 to 50,000 minicab drivers presently offering their services to members of the public without any guarantee of even a minimum standard.

Because this problem has been with us for so long perhaps we should look at more practical solutions than those so far proposed. Perhaps it is time to consider how problems of this nature were dealt with in the past, specifically in the betting industry, which was at one time run by a type of underworld bookmaker who employed bookies' runners, and from whom the public got a very bad deal. It was the Betting and Gaming Act 1961 which offered licences to all those who were soundly vetted and who wanted to run such businesses. In a very short time that industry was transformed and now contains national and international companies who employ several thousand people and who have the confidence of the betting public. That was a situation dealt with at a stroke and dealt with successfully.

We must look at the vital ingredient of putting responsibility with the operator. My noble friend Lady Gardner knew that I intended to speak on this matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, put it in a slightly different way as regards HGV or PSV drivers, but I do not think we are too much at variance in this area. If the operator fails to comply with the conditions of his licence he puts his whole business prospects at risk. Therefore it would appear sensible at this time to consider offering operator licences to "fit and proper people", as I think legislation states—I believe that "a reputable person" is better, although both sound patronising—within the private hire or minicab industry, putting conditions on their licence relating to the drivers under their control.

That would not involve licensing individual drivers, but the licence conditions could have the same effect. The fee charged to the proprietors would cover the cost of the administration involved. All drivers would have to work for a licensed operator, and details of each driver would be sent to the Metropolitan Police and the Department of Employment. Those operators holding licences would of course offer great assistance to the police when dealing with any drivers operating illegally. The end result would, at minimum cost and to maximum effect, be a system of control that would guarantee the public the protection which they have been demanding for over 20 years.

I have been brief on purpose. The Government said that they agreed that something should be done. We want to have some action, and I beg my noble friend not to put this issue on the back burner. Let us deal with it, and within a year or 18 months from now.

8.45 p.m.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for introducing this Question in the House, not only on behalf of myself but on behalf of my noble friend Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham who, under normal circumstances and had he been here, would have addressed this Question. I have a particular interest in this subject as a motor cyclist, as one of the co-founders of the all-party motor cycle group, as a road user, and as one who is aware of motor vehicles in London. Therefore, I have to say that a proliferation of minicabs without the kind of controls that have been so well covered by previous speakers would pose a great threat to that particular class of road user.

It must be remembered that the "knowledge"—the term that is used for the procedure by which black cab drivers get to know their streets in order to pass the requisite examination—is gained by using a two-wheeled vehicle, often a scooter or a small motor cycle. Whatever complaints one may have from time to time about drivers of black cabs, their knowledge of motor cycles and two-wheeled vehicles is such that they are considerate towards motor-cyclists. The same cannot be said about the majority of minicab drivers.

The safety of the public is paramount in this respect. It is quite unacceptable to have unlicensed and unexamined drivers driving vehicles which are unsuitable for the trade that they ply. I do not think that any noble Lord has mentioned it, but may I say in passing that if competition from cheap cars, which are probably unroadworthy, at prices well below those charged by black cabs were allowed to exist, it would eventually put the black cabs out of business.

The London black cab is an expensive vehicle. My noble friend Lord Winchilsea told me—and he should know because he drives a black cab, obviously without a meter—that the black cab costs about £22,000. It is a hand-made vehicle. I regret to say that nowadays it has a Japanese engine but the bodies are made in the Midlands. It is especially made for the use to which it is put, and I imagine would require little adaptation for invalid carriages. I think that was mentioned by one noble Baroness. A car that can be bought for £4,000 or £5,000 and used as a minicab is not going to be able to meet that kind of special requirement.

I do not intend to add in any way to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said. She has not overstated the case at all. I did not know that one-quarter of all stranger rapes were associated with minicabs. It is terrifying. If it were 10 per cent. or 5 per cent. of all stranger rapes it would be horrifying, and would lead those in authority in the country to look carefully at the licensing of these vehicles. The safety of road users, of the people outside the cabs and of those who ride in the vehicles, must be protected. The cabs must be licensed. Only a lunatic would take another view. I know perfectly well that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, is no lunatic. In fact, he is a very sensible chap who rides a motorcycle, and I hope he will have a long life ahead of him. He is a sensible rider as I have observed, and I am sure that he will give us a sensible and helpful answer.

I support everything that has been said about the need to inspect proprietors as well as vehicles, but I would add what might seem a trivial point. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, mentioned it. Black cabs in London have been part of the scene of London for years, rather like London policemen. Tourists come here and expect to see black cabs, and they like talking to taxi drivers. In fact, they probably learn more from taxi drivers than they do from anybody during their visits here. If the black cabs were forced to disappear from our streets because we did not bother to protect them against the wrong kind of competition, it would be a sad day for the London environment.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, the only point I should like to make—probably the noble Viscount would have gone on to make it—is that what we are suggesting here is that no other order of black cabs should be able to ply for hire in the streets. The minicab situation is different. They have to be procured by telephone or by going to their offices. That is a different situation. There is no reason why the black cab should ever disappear on that pretext.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. This is neither the time nor the place to expand on it and perhaps I may talk to him about it outside this Chamber. But there is definitely a threat to the existence of black cabs, especially in times such as these when people are very hard up. Obviously, too, rather than going out at night to find a black cab, if people can get a cab at a quarter of the price, they are tempted to do so. I thank the noble Lord for his interjection, and I thank the noble Baroness for having had the chance to speak. I hope that I have done my noble friend justice. I know that he feels passionately about black cabs and their continued existence and about all the other points which have been so eloquently raised this evening.

8.52 p.m.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for opening this question. It is a matter which she has raised a number of times and one in which she has a great interest. She referred to reservations which I have had from time to time, so before this debate took place I thought I would check what I had said on the last occasion when I intervened on a Question which the noble Baroness put on the 1st July. I said then that I thought that there was a general public desire for legislation to bring the minicabs into line with the black cab trade, but I also said that nothing should be done to weaken the position of black cabs in the splendid service that they give to the people of London. That remains my view today.

We are very grateful to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust for the publicity that they have given to this general problem which led to the establishment of the working party by the Department of Transport. That working party was very widely representative of the taxi trade, the minicab trade and everybody involved in that industry. We should look carefully at what they were asked to do. Their terms of reference were: To make recommendations on the framework needs to ensure that users of taxis and minicabs in London can travel in reasonable safety and security". Reference has been made to the very strict regulation that there is on the black cabs. There is a very useful section in the report which details all those points. I shall not refer to it, but I think it is useful to take a look at the numbers involved. The report says that there are 17,000 licensed black cabs and 20,000 licensed taxi drivers, of which 2,000 are licensed to operate only in designated suburban areas. Contrary to that, there are over 40,000 minicabs operating without any regulation whatever. That is a point which has been made by other speakers.

I should like to assure the House and the reputable taxi firms that nothing that I may say is intended to be an attack on the minicab trade. I frequently use minicabs in my area. Plenty of black cab drivers seem to live in my area but no one seems to operate there. Therefore I use minicabs quite a lot, particularly to come to your Lordships' House when I need to come very early. Reputable operators of minicabs or taxicabs can only but gain from good, strong and fair regulation. In my local area, two minicab operators have recognised the desirability of introducing some identification of drivers. Without there being any mandatory requirement, they have voluntarily introduced identification cards for their drivers because they want to reassure passengers, particularly women passengers.

Reference has been made to the position outside London. I think we all understand the position, but, in relation to what my noble friend Lady Hollis said, and without referring to any particular area, when using a black cab in a certain conference town recently I was disgusted with the state of the taxi cab and with the attitude of the driver in his discourtesy. That was a case where it was obvious that the regulations were being ignored, and where, even though the district council had the responsibility for licensing, a lot more needed to be done. That does not apply to the black cab trade in London.

The report of the working party to which I have referred goes on to recommend that regulations should be introduced to cover minicabs in London. But instead of proposing how that should be done the working party concluded: However, given the diversity of views expressed by members during our deliberations we are unable to recommend what form such control should take". That is not a very helpful recommendation.

The diversity of views is exemplified in a number of paragraphs of the report which set out two possible options: a single tier system for all vehicles and drivers wishing to provide a taxi service in London, with a single set of standards; alternatively, a two-tier system, one for taxis and another for minicabs.

I should like to draw attention to paragraph 23 of the report: If the Government were minded to propose a two-tier system of licensing in London, we believe that it should first look hard at the provincial system and any difficulties being experienced there". It is surprising that no explanation of the difficulties referred to appears in the report, even though there were four representatives of the Department of Transport on the working party, including the chairman. Yet we have no details of the difficulties that have arisen in the provincial system. That is surprising because there are press reports of intense differences of opinion arising in some towns. I particularly refer to Liverpool, Bradford and Hackney, in which there are quite strong press reports of differences of opinion and arguments between taxi drivers and minicab drivers. Yet we do not have any account of the differences and the problems that have arisen in the working party report.

The CBI recently issued a helpful memorandum which set out three options. The first was to leave things in London as they are—the status quo. The CBI claimed that there is a consensus in the industry that this position is completely undesirable. I believe that all noble Lords would agree with that. There then follow in the memorandum arguments for and against the single tier and two-tier systems. The CBI conclusion is that, despite initial difficulties, a single regulatory system for the minicab and hackney carriage industry in London is the most preferred route to take. The CBI memorandum suggests that the Minister for Transport in London, Mr. Steven Norris, who incidentally is my Member of Parliament, is considering the working party report and is likely to reach some conclusions by the end of the year. Can the noble Viscount tell me who will advise Mr. Norris? There were four members of the department in the working party. It failed to make any decision as to how regulation should be introduced. Therefore there are intense problems.

A single tier seems to be the answer, but how are we to proceed? This is not a party political matter but I have checked the position of my party on this subject. It is as follows: Labour is committed to a reform of the taxi and minicab trade to create a safe, regulated service. But we recognise that black cabs have traditionally been unwilling to work outside the central area"— a point that has been made by previous speakers"— leaving large tracts of suburban London without a service and that it is this that has led to the growth of small minicab firms in such areas". That is what is happening in my own area. Reforms will have to ensure that people dependent on these firms are not deprived of a service". Moving towards a single system of licensing cannot be done over night. The CBI made a helpful suggestion and the Minister should consider the matter carefully. The CBI suggests that the Minister for Transport in London, Mr. Norris, should set up a committee to advise on the timetable and the best means to move the industry towards single tier regulation. The Government must accept that there is need for regulation of some kind. They should then decide on what kind of regulation it should be and how it is to be introduced.

The present position cannot continue. The public want some regulation. At the same time they want to see no damage done to the black cab trade. At the moment some areas of London have to rely solely on minicabs because of the desire of black cab drivers to work in central London. One can understand that. Can the Government say whether they accept the recommendation that there must be regulation of minicabs in London? Do they agree that a working party, as suggested by the CBI, should be set up to consider a timetable for bringing this into operation? One cannot deal with regulation overnight, particularly when one bears in mind that some 40,000 minicabs operate in London. Do they agree that there should be a single tier? A decision has to be made.

This cannot be left to one Minister to determine. It is certainly not a matter that can be left to the political parties to argue about in Parliament. The working party that was set up should have made a recommendation of this kind. It did not do so. I should like to see something on the lines of a working party set up by the Department of Transport to work out these problems, having at the outset accepted the principle that there shall be some regulation of minicabs.

9.5 p.m.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, it was because the Government share the real concerns that have been expressed tonight that the working party was set up late last year by the predecessor of my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London with the following terms of reference: To make recommendations on the framework needed to ensure that users of taxis and minicabs can travel in reasonable safety and security". Its report has been with the Minister for Transport in London since its publication on 15th July of this year and copies have been placed in the Library.

I should first like to say one or two words about the background to this report and what has happened subsequently. The licensing of taxis in London has a long history, as you can tell from their legal name of "hackney carriages". Some of the legislation still in force in London dates back to the first half of the last century. The London taxi trade is a tough one to enter and its members are proud to work in what is, I think, the best taxi service in the world. They are therefore naturally sensitive to anything that they fear would damage London's taxi service.

The question of "what shall we do about minicabs" has been with us now for more than 30 years, since they first appeared with a flourish on the streets of London in 1961. They were introduced in an effort to fill what was seen as a gap in transport provision for hire cars at lower rates than the traditional taxis. Since that date there has been considerable animosity between the London taxi trade and the London minicab trade, and while an uneasy truce is perhaps the best description of the present state of the parties, this has not always been so.

In more recent times allegations have been made that the unregulated minicab trade is not a safe place for passengers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, so powerfully argued, the issue of safety in minicabs, especially for women, is a very emotive one indeed. We frequently have reports in the media of women being assaulted by bogus minicab drivers or driven to an isolated spot, robbed and abandoned. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I give due credit to the way Diana Lamplugh and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust have campaigned for users of minicabs and taxis to be made aware of the dangers of getting into a strange car in a strange place without first checking that the driver is genuine. I am aware that my noble friend who instigated tonight's debate is a strong supporter of the trust. As a result of work sponsored by the trust and funded by the Department of Transport and the Woolwich Building Society it appeared that a case could be made for improving the safety of users of minicabs and taxis, so a Department of Transport working party was set up last year with representatives from interested parties.

Given the respective histories of the London licensed taxi and minicab trades, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships to learn that, after a few meetings, the chairman of the working party came to the conclusion that, although there was a measure of agreement that something ought to be done about minicabs, the two sides had really reached entrenched positions and however many meetings were held, agreement was unlikely to be reached over just what should be done. The report of the working party reflects that fact. Since its publication, my honourable friend the Minister of Transport in London has been consulting widely and has met with all interested parties. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, the views that my honourable friend has heard, together with those expressed by your Lordships this evening, will be very carefully considered. My honourable friend hopes to announce proposals by the end of the year.

I should now like to turn to some of the issues that must be taken into consideration. The traditional "black cab", which of course nowadays comes in a multitude of colours and advertising liveries, is, as has been stated tonight, very much a symbol of London to tourists and Londoners alike. There are two manufacturers of London taxis, which are built to unique standards and have some very special features. They can turn on a sixpence—so useful in congested areas—they have good headroom inside so that everyone can sit in them in comfort, and, most importantly, by the year 2000 all licensed London taxis will accommodate people who are confined to wheelchairs.

That is a very important point because it will mean that people who are in that situation will be able to get out and about in London without taking someone else along to help them. But it does depend on wheelchair-accessible taxis being available. That, in turn, means that we must protect the concept of the London cab, as it is at present the best type to meet requirements for a highly manoeuvrable vehicle, able to seat four or five people in reasonable comfort, carry an amount of luggage and be easily useable by a person in a wheelchair.

As we have heard this evening, some people have asked that a single standard should apply to all hire cars in London; that is, both minicabs and taxis and their drivers. That is the so called "one-tier system". The idea is that minicabs would be phased out over a period of several years, by the end of which their drivers would have had to pass one of the knowledge of London tests. and be licensed as taxi drivers. At the same time, they would have to acquire a vehicle meeting the standards set for a London taxi. If the standards for London taxis are to be maintained—and we intend to do so—that would mean the purchase of a black cab by all minicab drivers who remained in the business. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, emphasised, those cabs cost a good deal more than the secondhand saloon cars used by many minicab drivers.

The advantage of licensing minicab drivers as taxi drivers is seen to be that it would weed out the "unsafe" ones who would fail to meet the character tests that London taxi drivers have to undergo. That is all very well in theory, but there were two instances where the London licensed taxi trade does not fulfil the needs of the public. These are now largely met by the minicab trade, but would we be able to ensure that a 100 per cent. taxi trade in London did meet them in future?

First, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes noted, there is the question of the area of work. London taxi drivers either have a green badge entitling them to ply for hire anywhere in the Metropolitan Police district, or else they have a yellow badge confining them to a suburban area. As I am sure your Lordships are aware, it is relatively easy to get a cab in central London, unless it is raining! Certain suburban areas like Croydon or Wimbledon also have a supply of taxis, but there are large parts of the inner suburbs and many of the outer ones where, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, illustrated, you cannot get a taxi for love nor money. It is in those places in particular that minicabs make a useful contribution to public transport.

Secondly, there is the question of cost. Minicabs are cheaper. You can get a minicab from a reputable firm to take you from Kenton to Heathrow for £13.50, whereas for a licensed taxi cab the fare will be more like £30.50. We are conscious that there are many people who cannot really afford taxi fares, but who find great advantage in being able to hire a car when one is needed.

An alternative scenario is for a two-tier system where minicabs and their drivers and possibly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis and my noble friend Lord Teviot, suggested, the operators of radio circuits, would be subject to some form of licensing regime. At present, the only preconditions are that there is planning permission to cover the use of the office as such, and payment of the correct fee for the radio. There are also problems with that scenario.

First, there is no consensus as to what standards should be required for drivers or their vehicles. For example, should drivers be required to do the "knowledge", or should we continue to rely on them looking up the route beforehand? Should minicabs be required to have four doors? Should there be a partition between the driver and the customer in the back? What maintenance standards should be required? How would they be enforced?

Secondly, would a licensing or a registration scheme for minicabs and/or their drivers damage the motor cycle friendly licensed taxi trade in the way that the latter fears? If so that would make the outlook for the London-type taxi bleak indeed, and in turn that for disabled people for whom ordinary saloon cars can cause a very real problem.

Thirdly, if we continue with the present knowledge of London test for taxi drivers, but license minicabs as well, would anyone still want to become a London taxi driver? After all, to pass the "knowledge" takes 18 months to two years, and the initial investment in a £20,000 London taxi is much more than the initial investment in a car suitable for a minicab.

With regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Teviot, I make it clear at this point that the Government have no intention of licensing minicabs to ply for hire in the street.

There is a final point that I should like your Lordships to consider. We are all aware of the problems that occur with the minicab trade. As my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said, we have heard of unlicensed, uninsured, unsafe cars being driven by drivers who do not know where they are, let alone where they are going, except if it is to sign on for unemployment benefit. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust's recent advertising campaign drew attention to the situation whereby a man can be released from prison in the morning and be driving a minicab by lunchtime, or he can have convictions for drunken driving and having had his licence back, or not having had it taken away, is still driving a minicab.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for giving way. I believe that he is reaching his conclusion. Before he does so, I want to ask him a question which arises from the proposition he put forward that the Government were intending to come forward with proposals before the end of the year. Have the Government in mind a White Paper, or, as I hope, a Bill? He will realise from the observations that have been made all around the House this evening that this a matter where time is of the essence and that further procrastination would be undesirable. I ask the noble Viscount to be more specific about that point.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I appreciate the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that further delay would be harmful, and I agree with him. All I can say is that the Government are consulting widely and hope to put forward proposals before the end of the year. I cannot be any more specific.

This is obviously an emotive issue as we have heard this evening, but we must not get carried away with the idea that all minicab drivers are rogues and criminals; and, in any event—this is an important point—one cannot detect the first time offender before he or she has committed the offence.

The problems with the safety of minicab users are, by common consent, largely those of the bottom end of the trade. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, and the point she made about rapes and minicabs, I have to say that the Metropolitan Police advise that they do not collect figures in that form and cannot substantiate that statement.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. I quoted from a report from Scotland Yard. I defer to the Minister but those were not my figures; they were attributed to Scotland Yard.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, that is the information that I have, but I shall go further into the matter and of course write to the noble Baroness on that important point.

We must remember that there are thought to be over 40,000 minicab drivers in London (as compared to about half that number of licensed taxi drivers) and that large numbers of people are carried in perfect safety each day and night by minicabs. What the Government have to weigh up is whether the advantages of regulating minicabs in one way or another is worth the costs, and more importantly, whether it would be effective. Or would the rogue element still trade in defiance of the law? It might well do so, and enforcement could well be a real problem. There are some parts of the minicab problem that could perhaps be dealt with by changes in the law independently of licensing; for example, touting and insurance. The Government will also be looking at those matters.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for putting her case so well, and to all noble Lords who made this such an interesting and useful debate. I am sure your Lordships will understand the complexities of the problem and will appreciate that a great deal of care is being taken on making the right decision.

House adjourned at twenty minutes past nine o'clock.