Disability Discrimination Bill

HL Deb 20 July 1995 vol 566 cc434-76

Consideration of amendments on 'Report resumed.

Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 104: After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:

("Amendment of Representation of the People Act 1983: voting rights —(1.) In section 5(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 ("the 1983 Act"), at the end there shall be inserted— or

1. (c) by reason of detention at any place by virtue of any enactment relating to persons suffering from mental disorder."

(2) Section 5(3) of the 1983 Act shall not apply to a person who is detained at any place by virtue of any enactment relating to persons suffering from mental disorder. (3) Section 7 of the 1983 Act shall cease to have effect. (4) In section 12(1) (a) of the 1983 Act the words "section 7(3) above, as to a person who on the qualifying date is a voluntary patient, and" shall cease to have effect. (5) In section 12(3) (a) of the 1983 Act the words "section 7(3) above, as to a person who on the qualifying date is a voluntary mental patient, and" shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with trepidation I introduce an amendment which at this stage I regard rather as a marker than a measure in its final form. Discussions have taken place with officials for some time, and I have exchanged messages with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who has agreed that the issues merit an airing. First, perhaps I may anticipate some points of criticism and explain briefly what the proposals are intended to achieve. That I start with defensive remarks illustrates my nervousness, not because of any weakness in the case for doing what we want to do (which I shall turn to in a moment) but probably because I am flying solo on this occasion and this is the first time that I have been on the Bill immediately after the interval.

I am conscious that to extend the franchise is a matter more appropriate for debate in another place. Had the issue been recognised in good time it would have been raised there and probably successfully dealt with. It was not recognised and so was not raised during the early stages of the Bill. Since the issue is of great importance for some people with learning disabilities, I raise it now and seek your Lordships' indulgence.

Secondly, the intention would be to extend voting rights only to those patients who, if they were being looked after in a different place or different sort of hospital or had not been in hospital quite so long, would have had the vote. Because there may be some misunderstanding on the point, I should like to make clear that in MENCAP's experience a good many people with quite severe learning disabilities in their daily lives are politically aware and interested in politics, knowing that political decisions closely affect their lives. Some of your Lordships may recall that on 22nd May on Second Reading (col. 839 of the Official Report) I quoted a conversation I had had with Miss Simone Aspis in which she had given me her point of view and those of others. Many people with learning difficulties will tell you with great feeling how social services committees have voted to cut day centres or bring in charges. That awareness and interest do not stop at the hospital gates.

There is no intention that voting rights should be extended to people whose learning disability is too severe or whose mental health is too poor for them to be able to decide which person or party to vote for; nor is there any intention that voting rights should be extended to people who have gone to hospitals as convicted criminals and still have an unexpired sentence. However, the reality is that 12 years on from the Representation of the People Act and the Mental Health Act—passed at a time when some of us had our eyes much more on the latter than the former, although I know that my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale raised this very issue in the House in 1985—radical changes in services have left the special provisions about voting in general and registration in particular (which never did make much sense) looking very odd indeed.

Briefly, if one is in one of the old-fashioned mental handicap or mental illness hospitals and not registered to vote elsewhere, one cannot register that hospital as one's home. If one is being looked after in an ordinary hospital or residential home one can use that address. To use the old language, the patient in the mental hospital who is not on a section—in other words, a voluntary patient—can register at another address, but only by going through a convoluted process of form filling "without assistance". When it is realised that someone with a learning disability can register as his place of residence the cottage in a Welsh valley where he or she. was born but which is now under 200 feet of water because it has since become an artificial lake, it will be understood why hospital staff have as much difficulty with the procedure as the patient. We ought not to require of people the ability to understand what is really incomprehensible as well as, quite properly, the ability to understand what it means to vote.

The sectioned patient cannot name an alternative address. That may sound logical until it is recalled that in certain circumstances we are all entitled to use for voting purposes addresses that we cannot get to at the time. Furthermore, patients who are on a section can and do get leave from hospital. As far as I can see, it is possible for a sectioned patient to be home on leave with his family on polling day but not be allowed to vote because he is not permitted to have an address. What the amendment proposes does is to allow patients who are in a fit state of mind to vote—perhaps hundreds rather than thousands of the hospital population—to register using either the hospital address or their home address.

What appeared to be behind the denial of the right to use the hospital address 10 years ago was the fear that in the days of the very large mental hospitals thousands of patients would be discharged or could be registered and all of them would vote the same way and change the local political geography. It was hardly a tenable argument 10 or 12 years ago; it is certainly not a tenable argument today.

I shall be interested to hear your Lordships' comments and the Minister's reply. I beg leave to move the amendment.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord's amendment, which raises a very interesting point. I hope that the Government will consider it in detail. I had not thought of it, and the noble Lord's words convinced me that he had a case.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I am not persuaded that the amendment should be accepted. However, the Government understand the concerns that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. As I believe the noble Lord indicated in his speech, the issue is complex. I hope that, the noble Lord having raised it and my having put some replies on the record, MENCAP and MIND will be able to carry on their discussions with officials of the Home Office about some of the detail.

There is no express statutory prohibition on detained mental patients voting at elections. However, Section 7(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 prohibits them from being treated as resident at the hospital where they are detained. That may be a funny way to look at the problem, but that is how it is approached. The Home Office has taken the view, based on decisions of the court and as a matter of statutory construction, that those detained in mental hospitals cannot be regarded as resident at an address outside the hospital. As a consequence, detained mental patients are effectively prevented from voting.

It is always dangerous to generalise but as a general rule those detained in hospital are suffering from the more severe mental illnesses and the Government think that it is reasonable to draw a line between them and non-detained patients in deciding who may or may not vote. In practice, those detained for short periods (for example, under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act) are unlikely to lose their voting rights because they will probably continue to be registered at their normal home address.

The amendment does not distinguish between various categories of detained patients. While the effect of the amendment would be to exempt from its effect patients who had been transferred to hospital from prison, it would not exempt some other categories of detained patients, such as those committed to hospitals by the courts, among whom are some committed under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act. This is clearly an issue which would need to be looked at in some detail.

Another consideration is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, detained mental patients cover a wide spectrum of mental illness. Some are clearly incapable of voting while others may be well able to vote. And there will be those whose mental state varies, who may be capable of voting on some occasions but not on others. It follows that there would be occasions when someone had to decide whether a detained mental patient was or was not capable of voting. I understand that the idea behind the amendment is that such a decision should be taken by electoral officials. However, the Home Office has spoken to a number of those officials who have told the Home Office that it is not a decision that they feel qualified to make. Although it might appear that electoral registration officers already take such decisions in respect of patients in the community, I understand that in practice they are rarely required to make such judgments except in fairly straightforward cases such as those involving a severe degree of mental impairment. Clearly, we would need to consult them formally, but all our initial indications are that they would not be happy about new arrangements which rested on their taking decisions about what they argue are essentially medical judgments.

I believe, too, that there are other issues that would need to be addressed. For example, it seems likely that in practice most detained mental patients would vote by post. The alternative—being escorted to the polling place—seems likely to be the exception rather than the rule. But postal voting in this way does carry some risk of fraud and the Government would want to consider whether existing safeguards on postal voting were sufficient. Similarly, the Government would want to look further at the position on residence.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, will the Minister also state how the law applies to proxy voting?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, if the people involved do not have a vote, they cannot have a proxy vote. I am a little puzzled. Perhaps I missed the point.

8.15 p.m.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, with the leave of the House, the point I sought to establish was that if someone could not vote because he was detained—in other words, he simply was not allowed to leave —obviously there is a possibility of a postal vote, as the Minister rightly said. As he also rightly said, there is the possibility of collusive fraud. We all know that the alternative would be for that vote to be vested in a member of the detained person's family. That is proxy voting. It would seem to overcome some of the suggestions that the noble Lord made and to a degree might meet the provisions in the noble Lord's amendment. The detained person could make his intentions clear.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, if my recollection serves me well, the conditions on proxy voting would then have to be considered. I do not think that one can have a proxy vote if one is at a known address and can vote by post. I believe that there has to be some other reason for needing a proxy vote.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I have one.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Baroness has a proxy vote. I have a postal vote but I would not consider that I was eligible for a proxy vote. Of course, we do not have a vote; I presume we refer to a local election. I have just remembered that.

However, the noble Baroness makes a point about the use of proxy voting. Obviously, I am prepared to consider the matter. I had not realised that the rules on proxy voting were quite so broadly drawn (I shall not use the word lax) that people who were simply away from home in the same country could have a proxy vote. Until now, I had always thought such a vote was for people who were totally unable to vote by post or at the polling station.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, the position has changed.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I am assured that the position has changed. I accept that. To return to the point, that may be another aspect that we shall have to consider.

I was about to say that the new clause, which expands Section 5(2) of the 1983 Act, would allow detained patients to register at what would be their home address if they were not detained. But the amendment also seeks to annul Section 7 of the Act, the effect of which would be to allow detained patients to use the hospital at which they are detained as an address for registration purposes. This would create the situation whereby a detained patient had the right to register in either of two places, or perhaps in both. What would be the criteria used to make the decision?

The amendment also seeks to annul Section 7 of the 1983 Act, thereby allowing voluntary mental patients to use the hospital in which they are living as an address for registration purposes, and no longer to have to make a patient's declaration as to their address outside the hospital. The Government do not believe that it would be right to accept those changes.

As regards the first effect of the amendment, that of allowing voluntary patients to use the hospital as their registration address—the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to the point; he did not think that the situation applied any longer—the Government believe that this would have a distorting effect on the electorate in a number of areas in which psychiatric hospitals are still located. The Government acknowledge that care in the community means that there are now far fewer such hospitals than was the case 10 years ago, when a similar amendment was put down during the passage of the Representation of the People Act 1985. But there are still a number of areas where distortion of the local electorate is possible.

The Government do not accept that the need for voluntary mental patients to make a declaration as to an address outside the hospital in which they are staying is discriminatory, or that it creates a major disincentive to registration to vote. Similar declarations are required from other groups of electors whose actual residence is different from where they are to be registered. Overseas electors—they have to declare their last registered address in England—and service electors make such declarations, and the arrangements appear to work satisfactorily.

The Government also believe that the declaration has some utility in that the ability to make such a declaration provides some measure of the mental patient's capacity to vote.

The noble Lord, Lord Rix, indicated that he is aware of the difficulties. While I cannot accept his amendment, I suggest again that, having put some of the problems on the record, MIND and MENCAP may continue to discuss the matters with the Home Office to see whether there are some practical solutions to some of the cases.

I was interested that the noble Lord expressed a little reservation about whether this was the correct House in which to discuss these matters. I do not have any objection to our discussing them, but as we are all denied the vote in parliamentary elections, I believe that a decision on the issue ought to be left to another place. With my experience of having been a Member of another place in a previous existence, perhaps I am a little more conscious of their special position on these matters.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, the other place could not take a decision on the matter on this Bill unless we made a decision and asked it to overturn it.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I appreciate that point. When I considered the issue, I wondered whether someone would pull me up in just the way that my noble friend has done. However, I still believe that, while it is perfectly proper for us to debate the matter, if anything is to be done it ought to start in the other place. After all, it is their electorate and that is it.

On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will now withdraw his amendment. I hope that discussions will continue to see whether we can do something for those in this group who would be capable of voting but are currently prevented from doing so.

Lord Rix

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful comments and for his recognition of the delicacy of the subject. I, too, was warned by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale that the other Chamber could well be the appropriate place for the matter to be discussed. I am not quite sure under what procedure that would take place.

However, as has been suggested, I hope that our advisers from both MENCAP and MIND can get together with the advisers from the noble Lord's department and the Home Office during the Summer Recess, and perhaps come to 'some meaningful conclusion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 [Taxi accessibility regulations]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 105: Page 20, line 39, leave out ("("accessibility") and insert ("("taxi accessibility").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 105 I wish to speak at the same time to a fairly long list of amendments: Amendments Nos. 107, 108, 110 to 112, 116, 118, 119, 121 to 125, 128 to 130, 132, 136 to 144, 148 to 151, 152, 157, 167 and 170.

Noble Lords will see that many of the amendments to which I am speaking are simply matters of good housekeeping. We propose to move Clauses 46 to 55 into Part V and to rename the part "Public Transport". That will make for a much tidier Bill and Amendment No. 157 deals with that simple provision.

The clauses dealing with PSVs and rail vehicles use the terms "PSV accessibility regulations" and "rail vehicle accessibility regulations", but on taxis, Clause 27 is currently drafted in terms of "accessibility regulations". For consistency we feel that this should be changed to "taxi accessibility regulations" and Amendments Nos. 105, 107, 111, 119 and 123 cover that point. Additionally, Amendment No. 108 provides further clarification of the definition of a "taxi".

Amendments Nos. 110, 116 and 118 which deal with Clause 28, seek to clarify these provisions. There is only one substantive change to the effect of the clause; it is Amendment No. 112. Where a person already has a taxi which is not wheelchair accessible (for example, a saloon car), we do not want him to have to replace it prematurely. So Clause 28 as now drafted allows the local authority to relicense such a vehicle which is currently used as a taxi, provided that the new licence comes into force immediately on the expiry of the old. But we recognise that there can be practical problems when a taxi is presented for relicensing, which usually involves an MOT or similar test. Remedial work may need to be done and parts may need to be obtained before the vehicle is acceptable as a taxi. So Amendment No. 112 allows a 28-day period of grace between the expiry of the old taxi licence and the commencement of the new. Of course, the vehicle cannot be used as a taxi while it is unlicensed. Amendment No. 124 is simply to clarify that the person to accompany the hirer is a disabled person. Amendment No. 125 removes Clause 32. By virtue of Amendment No. 138 the forgery provisions will be swept up in Clause 50 with those relating to PSVs.

Amendment No. 167 to Clause 59 will enable regulations to be made for different areas and localities. We are therefore proposing Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 which remove similar provisions in the existing Clause 46. Amendment No. 148 to Clause 53 proposes the same approach for rail vehicles. Amendments Nos. 130 and 132 remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult before making a special authorisation order and imposes a requirement to consult DPTAC and other representative organisations before he makes any regulations relating to accessibility certificates or approval certificates.

Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 are proposed to make clearer that the words "as he thinks fit" apply to the examining of the vehicle rather than to the issuing of a certificate. Amendments Nos. 139, 140, 141, 142 and 143 are consequential on Amendment No. 138 which, in sweeping up the provision of Clauses 30 and 31 in the proposed amendments to Clause 50, establishes a new term "relevant document" to describe the certificates and notices which might be falsified.

Amendment No. 144 requires the Secretary of State to consult representative organisations before making fees regulations. Amendment No. 170 ensures that the regulation-making provisions for taxis, rail vehicles and PSVs do not restrict the general regulation-making powers under Clause 59.

The amendments to Clause 60, are consequential amendments dealing with interpretation of the terms which are introduced in the transport clauses. In providing for this in Clause 60, Amendment No. 122 is required to remove a duplicate provision in Clause 30.

During the Committee stage, I emphasised that the regulations which would be made under these transport provisions would apply only to new vehicles. This point was recognised in the amendment which was tabled by the Opposition in the other place. On rail vehicles, though, I indicated that we would be coming forward with an amendment to make this position absolutely clear.

I must make clear that this does not, in any way, represent a diminution of the Government's commitment to achieving access to rail vehicles. Indeed, the passenger trains which have been brought into service in recent years provide a good and improving standard of accessibility; and that has been achieved without any legislative requirement to do so. Amendment No. 151 provides for this concept of "new" vehicles to be made explicit on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me coming in at this late stage of proceedings on the Bill. However, I am concerned about some of the rural areas in Scotland. The only way in which any taxi service has been provided is by people using cars which do not have the facilities which are written into the Bill. In discussions in my own county and with county officials, the providers of taxi services said that if we wished to ensure that facilities were provided for the disabled, the people operating taxi services would cease to operate that side of their business. They would carry on with ordinary garage work.

The other point about which I wonder is on Amendment No. 108. It also appears elsewhere in the Bill. I am pretty certain that neither the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 nor the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 applies to Scotland. I feel that it is worth making those comments.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, we on this side of the House broadly support the Government's position on taxis. We believe that they are public service vehicles. Taxis are an important ingredient of public service transport and, therefore, they must be accessible to disabled people on a flexible and realistic basis. We believe, as the Bill lays down, that new vehicles introduced must be fully wheelchair accessible.

It is worth reminding ourselves that virtually all existing vehicles can be made accessible at reasonable expense if they are not already so. I understand from the briefing which I was kindly sent that the Fairway, which represents the majority of London cabs at the moment, has additional clip on steps and swivel seats fitted as standard on all new models. The older FX4 can be converted at a cost of about £1,400. Those figures were new to me and I find them interesting. As for the Metrocab, it can be fitted with a powered swivel seat at about £700, while the saloon cars mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, can, I understand, have a swivel seat at between £250 and £450. I believe that that is a reasonable cost to expect for a vehicle to be made accessible for the broad range of disabilities.

We support regulations that as the vehicles are replaced, the new ones should be fully wheelchair accessible and that existing vehicles should be adapted. We recognise that the situation is different in rural areas where swivel seat saloon cars may be more comfortable and appropriate. It is worth reminding ourselves that of the disabled people who prefer red/black cabs, 30 per cent. could not physically manage the saloon car, whereas of the disabled people who preferred saloon cars, only 3 per cent. could not manage a black cab.

I do not wish to trespass too far on the cluster of amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. However, we also believe that it is right that local authorities should be able to make a case for exemption to the Secretary of State, where there is no unmet need. But we would not and could not support a position where it was left entirely to local authority discretion as to whether there should be a mixed fleet. We believe that otherwise conflicting criteria would apply from place to place. The trade has fought vigorously, but as one who helped impose the black London taxi cab on a fleet that was often of fairly battered saloon cars, as a way of professionalising the service in my city, I know to a modest degree how resistant the trade can be to such changes. However, the Government are right to insist on the changes for which they are asking.

I have some questions. Will regulations relating to guide dogs also apply to private hire cars or only to hackney carriages? What are the Government doing about assisting the development of a new design of taxi to meet the needs both of disabled people and of the drivers themselves, some of whom may, for example, be women or themselves be disabled or in poor health and could not reasonably be expected to struggle with a wheelchair? Given that the Secretary of State has the power to give exemptions to local authorities, what criteria, apart from "no unmet need", is he likely to apply?

Turning to other forms of public transport such as buses, in Committee the Minister emphasised that accessibility had to be compatible with viability. How will that be defined and assessed? What sort of timescale is he operating to?

As to rail, and some of the amendments that the noble Lord addressed in his opening remarks, given the splintering of British Rail—to which I believe all of us on this side are bitterly opposed and which the country as a whole bitterly regrets—who will be responsible for ensuring, for example, that ramps onto trains are available? Will it be the train company or will it be the station operators where these are separately owned? There are many problems affecting disabled people so far as the "Balkanisation" of British Rail is concerned, and this is certainly one of them.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I have great respect for the noble Baroness and for the wonderful work she has done on this Bill. I have to tell her that when we come to consider my amendments next, I hope to give her a broader view of the facts of life in this matter, which I hope may cause her to modify her views.

Lord Gladwin of Clee

My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to return to an issue that I discussed late one night in Committee; namely, airports and stations—

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, it would be helpful to me if the noble Lord would perhaps indicate which of the amendments I need to look at at this stage.

Lord Gladwin of Clee

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot do that. I hoped that the Minister would not ask that question. Perhaps I may continue.

I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurances on a point to which I shall come in a moment. In Committee he said that he would look at the issues that I raised, but I have heard nothing since, and there was nothing in the Minister's speech this evening.

This matter begins with the report of the Transport Committee in the House of Commons on taxis and private hire vehicles. In the paragraph on airports and stations, the Committee stated: Land, including roads, at airports and stations is usually privately owned and can be controlled by the airport operator or station owner. This gives them the right to regulate the use of their premises by taxis and PHVs and, in some cases, to levy charges. Sometimes, as at Gatwick Airport, the concession is granted to a single taxi or PHV company". Perhaps I may interpose here the fact that the contract has been given to two private hire companies. The committee goes on to state: While we note that the Government is "not entirely convinced" of the merits of granting this type of concession, as opposed to allowing any locally licensed taxis to operate at such premises, there may on occasion be arguments for such an arrangement, for example in order to avoid congestion. Sole concessions should only be awarded after an open competition, which should give preference to companies which undertake to provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles". The Government's response to that comment by the committee was as follows: The Government appreciates the sentiment behind this recommendation. However, it would not seem appropriate to control this by regulation. Hire vehicles at airports and stations (taxis and PHVs) are there to make access to and from the station or airport attractive to passengers. It is therefore in the interest of the owning authority or company to ensure that appropriate facilities are provided". If airports and railway stations decide to invite tenders for the provision of taxi services for their passengers, and those contracts are won by private hire vehicle operators, as they have been at Gatwick, then they are not covered by this legislation and there is no requirement to provide vehicles suitable to wheelchair users. To be fair, the companies that won the contracts at Gatwick earlier this year for three years do have a number of vehicles with swivel seats, but they have no vehicles that can carry a disabled person in a wheelchair.

I return to the concern that I expressed in Committee; namely, that disabled passengers arriving at railway stations and airports in wheelchairs could have difficulty in finding suitable transport by taxi because the monopoly provider of the taxi service is a private hire vehicle operator, not covered by this legislation. Can the Minister give us some assurances on this matter?

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, I join the noble Lord in seeking the Minister's assurances, and perhaps I ought to declare an interest. I use the facilities at airports and railway stations, and taxis. It would be very serious if any of these facilities deteriorated. In fact, they need to progress even more. There are still some trains that are very difficult for disabled people to use. It is of concern when one hears that these facilities might disappear.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I am in some difficulty in dealing with this issue, as many of the points are not very relevant to the amendments that I have in front of me. Perhaps noble Lords will bear with me, since I can answer some of the points far better in the next debate, to be led by my noble friend Lord Renton, when we shall go into the detail of his concerns, which relate to some of the questions asked. I should be straying well out of order if I began to answer questions about amendments that are not actually before us at the moment. If noble Lords will allow me to do that, I shall return to some of these points, as I fully anticipated I should have to do, when we come to the more relevant group of amendments in the name of my noble friend.

I shall try to say a few words. One thing I certainly can say is that my noble friend Lord Balfour is quite right Amendment No. 108 applies to England and Wales in the one case and to London in the second case. The position in Scotland is that Clause 33 allows similar provisions to be made for Scotland by order. Because Scottish taxi legislation, as the noble Lord will know, is more modern, the provision can be made much more simply. So Scotland will be covered via Clause 33 and its more modern legislation.

It might be better for completeness of debate if I answer some of the other points in the next debate. Otherwise, we shall be repeating ourselves in very close order, and that would not be sensible. I undertake to allow myself to postulate on the other questions what my answer would be, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees gave me an example this afternoon, if they were in order when we come to that debate.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 106:

Page 20, line 44, at end insert (", when required).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. With it are grouped Amendment No. 109, which is the substantive one, and some consequential amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 113 to 115, 117 and 120.

Perhaps I may first thank my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish for his understanding of my reasons for moving these amendments. He corresponded with me and we discussed the matter. I am very appreciative of his capacity for listening. That is very important in Ministers, if I may say so without appearing to be patronising.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that local licensing authorities shall have a discretion when granting new licences for taxis to decide which ones should be wheelchair accessible, but they shall have an obligation to require that all taxis shall conform with the regulations which will be made relating to the carriage of disabled people otherwise than in wheelchairs. In other words, we anticipate that under the regulations all taxis and all saloon cars used for carrying disabled people under the Hackney Carriage legislation, shall be easily accessible to them. Indeed, there ought to be a swivel seat, possibly in the seat next to the driver, to enable disabled people to get into the car.

When my severely handicapped daughter wants to get into my ordinary car, I have no difficulty. I have a swivel seat (which cost me only £20, not the £450 that was mentioned) in order to allow her to get onto the seat easily. It can then be turned round so that she is facing the front. Then I fold up the wheelchair. I used to put it in the boot when I had one; now I have a small estate car and it goes in there comfortably.

I suggest that discretion and obligation are achieved by Amendment No. 109. I need not read it out; it is self-explanatory. I should add that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friend Lord Holderness added their names to the amendment, but neither could be here today. Nevertheless, they asked me to say that they strongly support the amendment.

For the benefit of the noble Baroness I shall put forward some figures produced by the Public Office of Census Surveys. The first is that we have a population of 55 million people. The second is that around 6 million of them are disabled in one way or another, including large numbers of mentally handicapped people who may or may not be physically disabled. Of that 6 million people, 430,000 use wheelchairs. That is one in 120 of the total population. Of those 430,000, only 7,500 are wheelchair bound; in other words, if they want to get into a vehicle, they have to stay in their wheelchairs. That means that we are only concerned with 7,500 people. Many of the 430,000 wheelchair users can and do use saloon car taxis, if there is some adaptation to enable them to get in and sit down.

Your Lordships will remember that at the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish added to the Bill what are now Clauses 27 to 30, the effect of which is to require that all taxis shall become wheelchair accessible unless the Secretary of State makes a regulation under Clause 29 enabling a licensing authority to apply to him for an exemption order. Only then would the local authority have a discretion in the matter. If we are to have—and I suggest we need to have—some flexibility as to the types of taxi used in each area and, in particular, how many of them should be wheelchair accessible, is it not better to leave it to the discretion of the local licensing authority, which knows the area, rather than cause delay and add to the cost of administration by requiring the licensing authority to apply to Whitehall for exemption? Generally, local people know better than the gentlemen in Whitehall. If Amendment No. 109 is accepted, Clause 29 will be unnecessary and should therefore be deleted from the Bill.

I suggest that it is not a sensible policy to insist that all taxis be wheelchair accessible in the years to come. It is all right in London and the big cities where there is a great demand for taxis anyway. But in the smaller towns like Huntingdon, which I know so well, and out in the country, it will lead to there being fewer taxis. Nobody can deny that. If any noble Lord can deny that, I hope that he will say so. I will give way immediately. There would be fewer taxis and that would be to the disadvantage of disabled people and the community as a whole. Therefore, flexibility should be the aim. We need some of each type of vehicle and we should let the local licensing authority decide how many wheelchair accessible cabs there should be.

Finally, I remind your Lordships once more that it is only a small percentage of the many disabled people who live in wheelchairs. I beg to move.

8.45 p.m.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, it is right that as the Bill stands licensing authorities should be able to make a case for exemption of their areas where they can show that there is no significant level of unmet need. But the criteria used in determining that should be decided nationally and applied consistently and in consultation with the appropriate bodies. As it stands the Bill already produces sufficient flexibility in that area. Transferring discretion from the Secretary of State to local licensing authorities will only weaken the Bill. For that reason, we are opposed to this amendment.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton mentioned the number of people who use wheelchairs on a permanent basis.

Lord Renton

My Lords, it is 7,500.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, it is a figure I do not deny because I simply do not know. He is forgetting that it is either one in 10 or one in six of us who use a wheelchair on a temporary basis for some part of our lives. That means that the number of people using wheelchairs at any one time is probably considerably higher than the figure he gave. At the time of temporary illness or disability those people will not be able to use their own cars.

I entirely agree with my noble friend that there should be some flexibility. As I understand it, the Bill produces quite a lot of flexibility already. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to indicate whether or not he knows of any developments in the design of a vehicle that will meet both the requirements of my noble friend as well as of those who use wheelchairs for their general mobility. The time will come when clever people will be able to produce a vehicle that will do both. It may not look like the London black cab but it would be welcome if we had a more versatile vehicle.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

My Lords, the noble Lord's amendments would, as he explained, give local authorities powers to decide whether they wished to have wheelchair-accessible taxis as opposed to the powers in the Bill whereby local authorities may seek exemption for all accessible taxis accessible to both wheelchair users and ambulant disabled people from the Secretary of State who must then consult DPTAC, as the Minister explained when speaking to his earlier amendment.

I want to stress at the outset that we need taxis which are easily accessible to both wheelchair users and ambulant disabled people, some of whom I know encounter difficulties in using the London-type wheelchair-accessible taxis. But it is my understanding that, thanks to initiatives being pursued by the Department of Transport, Clauses 27 to 33 of the Bill are concerned with a new breed of taxi, one that is equally accessible to wheelchair users and ambulant disabled people and, indeed, the able-bodied public at large.

The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that it would be better to leave it to the local authorities to decide. If these amendments go through it will be for the individual disabled person to convince local authorities that disabled people should have access to local taxis. That could be very difficult indeed for the individual disabled person when the local authority is being backed by powerful local taxi business interests. The amendment seems to allow mixed fleets. Such flexibility is already possible under the Bill. Even if all local taxis are made accessible, local areas will also be served by hire cars that need not be accessible.

The noble Lord, Lord Renton, argues for flexibility but truly mixed fleets—some inaccessible and some accessible taxis—do not solve the problem. Waiting for taxis in the cold and in the rain can be difficult enough for anyone. Waiting for the accessible taxi from a mixed fleet could be very difficult indeed for a disabled person. In London today, with its current mixed fleet, I have heard of several instances of disabled people missing trains as a result of having to wait 30 minutes or so for an accessible taxi to arrive. Indeed, on 13th July Bert Massie, the director of RADAR, wrote to Steven Norris, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, saying: Even though almost half of London's taxis are accessible, last week eight empty taxis passed me before I could get one that I could stop that I could get my wheelchair into". Another difficulty would be, if local authorities were allowed to renege too easily on their responsibilities under the national regulations, with or without the encouragement of local taxi firms, that disabled visitors would not know whether the taxis in an area they went to were accessible. That would discourage the use of taxis by disabled people who need to know in advance of a visit what they can expect in the area. We need all taxis that are able to ply for hire to be accessible to all disabled people—ambulant, in wheelchairs, blind, and partially sighted. The amendments introduced by the Government at the Committee stage have been tremendously welcome. It is therefore with sadness, because I admire the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is, I hope, my friend in a non-political sense, but with no hesitation, that I oppose these amendments.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, where do the minicabs in London fit in? They are not licensed in the way minicabs are in every other part of the country. It is very important for us to be aware of that. I think that to have every vehicle available for disabled people or for wheelchair access would be too much. The black cabs in London had that imposed on them by the Department of Transport and they must all be accessible by the year 2000; but we have this extraordinary situation where the minicabs do not even have to be roadworthy. They are not assessed in any way. I want to know where they fit in.

Lord Carter

My Lords, before the Minister replies, I wonder whether he can deal with another aspect of the problem which is similar to the one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). I refer to the taxis which refuse to stop because they see that a person is in a wheelchair and they cannot be bothered to stop and pick up the wheelchair user. There is another problem with a mixed fleet which concerns a person who rings up and specifies the type of taxi he needs without saying he is a wheelchair user. However, by specifying the type of taxi, it is clear that he is a wheelchair user. Such people just do not get a taxi because the taxi cannot be bothered to put on the ramps and so on. If local authorities had the freedom which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, proposes, would not the problem be even worse?

Baroness Masham of Ilion

My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Renton, a question about his daughter. The modern wheelchair taxis with the black handles—the silver handled ones are no good—are so much more acceptable to my noble kinsman who has tremendous difficulty getting into a silver handled taxi because the door is so narrow. He is an ambulant person but he is a little disabled now because he has a stiff leg. The wide door and handles of the black handled taxi make such a difference. I do not see what difference one of these accessible taxis would make because the noble Lord's daughter would still have a problem. She would have to use a car such as a minicab because no doubt she has to sit in the front of the car wearing a seat-belt. I do not see that that will solve the problem.

Lord Renton

My Lords, perhaps I may answer that question. I hope I am in order in doing so. My daughter is cared for at a place 100 miles from my home. I fetch her from there several times a year and I normally take her in my own car. She sits beside me, the driver, on a swivel seat and travels comfortably. She is a marvellous traveller. On an occasion when I put her in a black cab she did not have to be in her wheelchair, because I can get her out of it, but she did not sit comfortably on the back seat of the black cab and she did not have a happy journey. That is the simple answer.

Baroness Stedman

My Lords, I ask the House not to accept the amendments. If they are accepted they will go a long way to ensuring that we make very little progress on the question of accessible transport. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State has the power to introduce regulations to enable disabled people, including wheelchair users, to use taxis. There is the provision for the regulations to be modified, if it is appropriate, for different parts of the country and DPTAC must he consulted, half of whose members are disabled people. Disabled people will therefore have some say in the regulations that are brought forward. However, under the noble Lord's proposals the local authorities would decide whether they wished to have accessible taxis instead of the local authorities having to make a case to the Secretary of State to justify not following the national rules. That means that disabled people would have to make their case to the local authorities that they should be able to use accessible taxis. They would probably then come up against the organised opposition of some of the taxi trade.

These amendments are completely out of place in a Bill that is designed to help disabled people. The amendments would allow mixed fleets. Some would be accessible but many or most of them might turn out not to be accessible. Surely a fully accessible fleet of those that ply for hire must be our goal—that is what we are striving for in the Bill—so that a disabled person, like any one of us in this House, can use the first taxi on the rank or on a street, as do those of us who are not disabled. Private hire vehicles are not included in the Bill. There are twice as many taxis for private hire available as there are Hackney cabs. So those people who prefer to use a private hire car or saloon car would still be able to have one without any difficulty.

I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 are designed more to protect current drivers from having to cater for disabled passengers. They mean that only new licence holders will have to make provision, and then only if required to do so by their local authority. Perhaps I may ask the Minister this question: am I right in believing that the Town Police Clauses Act clearly states that the licence is granted to the vehicle and that when a new vehicle is bought, it requires a new licence? Is it correct that it is not the old licence which is being renewed, but a new licence which is attached to the vehicle? If the noble Lord's intention is to protect current drivers at the expense of new drivers, in my opinion these amendments do not achieve that.

There is no dispute that not all disabled people can use the London taxi, but that is already addressed in the Bill. There are new taxi designs in the offing to meet the needs of the population and they are under consideration and going ahead. Further improvements are being made day-by-day to the traditional taxi. It is also the case that in some parts of the country disabled people are unable to use taxis at all because there are not any that they can use with their disabilities. If these amendments are accepted, I believe that they will ensure that that situation continues into the future. If Clause 29 is also omitted, that could lead to the taxi policy that we are trying to create here being killed off.

I am advised that Fish Insurance in Preston insures over 50,000 electric cars, which are used by disabled people and over 80,000 people use a wheelchair all day and every day. Those are the figures which I have been given. It depends on the sources as to which figures one uses. The Government have listened and their amendments have been a notable success in this Bill. As it now stands, the Bill will do much to promote the independence of, and give mobility to, disabled people. If these proposals are weakened, then there will be significant undermining of the whole concept of accessible transport.

Accessible trains are very useful, but they would be much more useful if people could reach them by an accessible taxi and if they could complete their journey at their destination in the same way. When the whole fleet of local taxis is accessible it will exemplify the principle of integration which my organisation—PHAB—of which I am proud to be a vice-president, and many other organisations under the umbrella of RADAR have striven to achieve for so many years.

The Government have been co-operative and helpful. We are very grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for the help that we have received. I do not believe that we should let this possibility and opportunity for advance be weakened here and now. I hope that, if the noble Lord presses his amendments to a vote, the House will reject them.

9 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for the kind remarks she made about the transport provisions which we have inserted into the Bill. As I said about a previous group of amendments perhaps I may do a bit of "sweeping up" before I get down to the substantive points which my noble friend raised in his amendments and those taken up by other noble Lords. It would be quite sensible to get one or two points out of the way.

As regards Amendment No. 108, which I have just moved and about which I responded to my noble friend Lord Balfour, the definition of "taxi" is there, as it is elsewhere in the Bill. It clearly says what we mean by "taxi". I make it absolutely clear that private hire vehicles are not in fact covered by the provisions of the Bill because they do not fall within the definitions of taxi in the Bill. That is the first point. The provision regarding the carriage of guide dogs will not refer to private hire vehicles, but taxis as defined.

My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes asked me about minicabs in London. We are aware of their position in London and it is totally unsatisfactory. In a recent Command Paper we made clear our intention to license minicabs, which will require legislation. That is not for this Bill because it goes a good deal wider than the problem of disabled people.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, asked me about changing cars and whether the licence carried on in a seamless way. I can confirm that, under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, it is the taxi which is licensed and the licence is not granted to an individual. The licence must be renewed annually. The same provision exists for London in the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act. I hope that that answers her concern that a taxi driver might be able to evade the law into the future by continuing with a new car and does not obey the law as regards his old licence. I do not believe that that will be possible.

Perhaps I may now deal with the question of taxis at Gatwick before I reach the question of taxis in the countryside. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, asked about this. I am advised that the terms which the airport has negotiated with hire car companies include the provision that a wheelchair-accessible vehicle is quickly available when required. There is no power to force Gatwick to do more than that because the service operates from its private property. I hope that that is helpful and that the answer I have given about the terms imposed will be of help to any disabled person who needs a taxi from Gatwick.

I was asked whether the taxi took one to the railway station and then on to the train—

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, can the Minister ensure that a public notice is displayed to that effect? It is clearly a problem and the situation is open to abuse. A notice displayed that any disabled person may request or require a wheelchair-accessible taxi as part of the undertaking of that contract, would meet some of the concerns of my noble friend.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I am not sure whether it is a problem. I certainly doubt whether I have the power to order people to put up a notice. I shall certainly look into the question. Even if I do not have the power, I suppose I might manage the power to sign a letter to somebody during the Recess. I have got the taxi to the railway station and on that basis I shall try to answer the question about bridging the gap between the platform and the train. I can envisage in the future trains having a ramp built into them. That may well come about. I believe I spoke about this in Committee. I said then that it is a difficult issue. We shall have to discuss it with all the interested parties before we reach a final decision. That will be one of our priorities in the coming months. We are satisfied that we have the legal powers needed to reach a solution and to make sure that that solution, whatever it may be, actually works.

I turn now to the more substantive debate on my noble friend's amendments which are based on his concern that we shall be insisting on wheelchair-accessible taxis in all rural areas and that that may damage trade in areas where there is only a limited taxi trade anyway. I think that that encapsulates my noble friend's points—

Lord Renton

My Lords, it would also be to the disadvantage of disabled people.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, yes, but it could be to the disadvantage of absolutely everybody. I understand the point that my noble friend is making, but this is a difficult problem. I can understand the theoretical attraction of having what I would describe as a "mixed fleet". That idea has been around for a long time, but it is fraught with difficulties, not least of which is how the local authority will decide which taxi should provide full access and which should not. When I considered the matter after our Committee stage, I envisaged first that the drivers might meet annually and draw lots to see who would have to provide the accessible taxi. There is a huge difficulty in this regard. Any kind of selection and any kind of pointing of the finger at one taxi operator and saying, "You'll have to provide the accessible taxi but the other fellow does not need to", is fraught with a great deal of difficulty. That is the point of view of the licensing authority and the taxi owners. I think that there might be complaints from the poor man who drew the short straw and had to ensure that his taxi was wheelchair-accessible.

I shall not dwell on the other problem which has been raised by other noble Lords. I refer to what happens when some taxis are not wheelchair-accessible and somebody at a station or leaving a restaurant tries to hail a taxi. There is the problem of the odds of finding a wheelchair-accessible taxi at such a time. Sod's Law is bound to work and none of the taxis that pass will be wheelchair accessible, just as Sod's Law works on a wet night so that no taxi with its light on ever seems to pass me when I am looking for one. This is a real problem. We want to make sure that disabled people can have exactly the same freedom to travel and to get a taxi as able-bodied people and that they do not have to hope that the law of chance is operating benignly every time they want to hail a taxi. They do not want to be left in the position of merely hoping that they will be more successful than in the National Lottery. It should not be a question of mere luck if the first taxi that comes along is wheelchair-accessible. As I have said, there is a real problem with mixed fleets.

On the question of exemptions, we recognise that there may be local circumstances which preclude the effective and sustainable use of accessible taxis, and we have provided a power for the Secretary of State to grant an order exempting an authority from the requirements of the Bill. Some of the criteria that will be applied to, say, the concept of unmet need are set out in Clause 29 and relate to the circumstances of an area and the effect on the number of taxis in the area of requiring full accessibility. A judgment will need to be made in each case. The granting of the exemption will depend on the authority in question being able to meet the specified criteria.

I should not like to prejudge how many authorities would seek to use the provision. However, it may well be that some areas will choose to do so, and I know that that is a matter of particular concern. I have been asked why I am putting it that way round and not merely giving the authorities the right to come to a decision on their own without going to the Secretary of State. In recent years there has been an increase in the number of legal challenges against local authorities which have sought to make wheelchair access a licensing requirement in their areas. That can be costly and is always time-consuming. The provisions of the Bill will ensure consistency across the country and I believe that they will be welcomed by most local authorities because they should reduce the risk of a legal challenge.

Perhaps I may turn now to the point about vehicle development. In Committee I tried to make sure that I dealt with one of the real problems in this regard and I seek to do so again now. There is a mistaken belief that in future we will be requiring the universal use of the London-type "black cab". This is not so. The point continues to be widely misunderstood and misinterpreted by sections of the trade. We recognise the valid criticism which has been levelled at the current models of wheelchair-accessible taxi that, while they can satisfactorily accommodate the vast majority of wheelchair users, they are difficult—or indeed impossible—for many elderly and disabled people. We want to ensure that the accessible taxis of the future do not come under the same criticism and I want to make it absolutely clear that we are not talking about a universal requirement for the current purpose-built taxi designs.

In consultation with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and the taxi industry we shall be defining design parameters based on research and experience to provide optimum levels of accessibility for all disabled people. We would expect a range of manufacturers to address the market that will be created. Those design parameters, which will form the basis of the regulations, will apply to new vehicles only. I would also like to make it absolutely clear, as I have done already in writing to my noble friend, that the period over which these requirements will be introduced will be long enough for existing non-wheelchair accessible vehicles to have reached the end of their useful life. There is simply no question of us introducing requirements in such a way as to undermine the viability of existing businesses. As my noble friend has rightly pointed out to me on a number of occasions, that would be in no one's best interest. We have no intention of doing that.

Perhaps I may sum up by saying that noble Lords will have noticed that I have not said anything at any stage about when the provisions might take effect. We shall want to discuss this issue in much more detail with the industry and DPTAC before we come to any conclusion. I can assure your Lordships that the dates that will be fixed in regulations will the realistic and will be achievable by manufacturers and operators alike.

I hope that with those assurances I have been able to calm my noble friend's fears, which I understand coming as I do from a rural area. Taxi operators in rural areas have nothing to fear from—if I may describe it like this—the gentle and understanding way in which this provision will be implemented.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. He has given the most open-minded reply he could have given in the circumstances. It is consistent with what he said on Second Reading. He has just told us that there will be no universal use of the black cab. That is good news. It is consistent with what he said on Second Reading—that he could assure the House that there is no intention to require every new taxi to be purpose-built.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, especially the two noble Baronesses in the wheelchairs who speak from great personal experience. I always admire not just their sincerity but the articulate and influential way in which they express their views. Tonight was no exception. Several noble Lords have pointed out the need for flexibility, and there is a need. It would be wrong for us to be rigid in this matter.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is an old friend, although not in the political sense. She and I, after all, live not far from each other. She referred to RADAR. I was once chairman of what I believe is the largest pressure group in this country; namely, MENCAP. I was always worried lest we should exercise a wrong judgment. Sometimes great pressure groups do exercise a wrong judgment, and I believe in this case RADAR did. Its attitude was rather urban-based, whereas as my noble friend the Minister pointed out in earlier debates, as many noble Lords know, we must think not just of London and the great cities but of rural areas too.

If we follow the national rules in the sense in which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, referred to them, we shall have fewer cabs. That will not be in the interests of disabled people. I gather from what my noble friend the Minister said that the Government will be giving further serious thought to this issue before Third Reading. If I can be of further assistance, I am at their disposal. With the hope that we shall reach a workable, sensible, just solution, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 107 and 108:

Page 21, line 3, at beginning insert ("Taxi"). Page 21, line 33, after (""taxi"") insert ("means a vehicle licensed under—

1. (a) section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, or
2. (b) section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869, but").

The noble Lord said My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 28 [New licences conditional on compliance with taxi accessibility regulations]:

[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments No. 110 to 112:

Page 21, line 35, leave out ("("a new licence")").

Page 21, line 37, after ("the") insert ("taxi").

Page 21, line 39, leave out from ("apply") to end of line 43 and insert ("if such a licence was in force with respect to the vehicle at any time during the period of 28 days immediately before the day on which the licence is granted.").

The noble Lord said My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendments. I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe)

My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 112 is agreed to Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 are pre-empted.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 113 to 115 not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 116:

Page 21, line 44, leave out ("subsections (2) and (3)") and insert ("subsection (2)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 118:

Page 21, line 47, at end insert ("or localities").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 29 [Exemption from taxi accessibility regulations]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 119:

Page 22, line 34, after ("to") insert ("taxi").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]

Clause 30 [Carrying of passengers in wheelchairs]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 121 to 123:

Page 23, line 2, at end insert ("and").

Page 23, line 3, leave out from ("concerned") to end of line 4.

Page 23, line 32, after second ("the") insert ("taxi").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 31 [Carrying of guide dogs and hearing dogs]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 124:

Page 24, line 7, after second ("a") insert ("disabled").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 32 [Forgery of exemption certificates]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 125: Leave out Clause 32.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 46 [PSV accessibility regulations]:

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 126:

Page 34, line 34, at end insert: ("( ) to be fully orientated whilst carried in the vehicle").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 126, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 127, 145 to 147 and 156. The amendments are designed to ensure that regulations published in respect of public transport take into account the need of visually impaired people. The current wording of the Bill and much of the debate in Committee centred on the physical accessibility of public transport. When undertaking research among blind and partially sighted people for a major RNIB report to be published this autumn, it was noted that one of the commonest complaints involved difficulties in using public transport and general mobility difficulties.

The fact that bus and train stops are often not announced makes it difficult for a blind or visually impaired person to get about easily. Many of the changes which would make all the difference to blind and partially sighted people are easy to implement and cost-effective. Some progress has already been undertaken to address those issues. For instance, a "talking" bus operates as a pilot project on Route 29 between Wood Green and Trafalgar Square in London. The Victoria and Central Underground lines provide audible announcements, as do most Intercity trains. Other countries have long-established provisions for audible announcements. They are provided on buses in Paris and, although I have not been there, I understand they are provided on all trains in Finland.

A lack of audible announcements is not only inconvenient but it can place blind and partially sighted people in danger. Getting off at the wrong railway station may lead to false assumptions about the station exits. Audible announcements are especially important on commuter or rural regional railway lines because there is less likely to be help available to blind and partially sighted people if they get off at the wrong station.

The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which was established in 1985 to advise the Department of Transport, published guidelines in 1994 on improving access to local buses. Those guidelines made reference to good communications, internal lighting and the positioning, colouring and texture of handrails and stanchions. I believe that the wording included in the Bill should reflect the fact that access to public transport goes wider than wheelchair access alone.

Amendments Nos. 126, 127, 145 and 146 deal with audible announcements and good design practice. Amendment No. 147 addresses the importance of developing uniform standards where possible in relation to rail services. I recognise the need to include provisions allowing regulations to differentiate between class of vehicle and geographic area. However, I believe that the uniform provision of audible announcements is both achievable and necessary. I consider that many of the changes needed for visually impaired people can be incorporated either immediately or during major refurbishment of coaches, buses and trains. I do not seek to bring forward an amendment to that effect, but I am keen that that point should be made.

Amendment No. 156 ensures that all land-based public transport has a duty to carry guide dogs and hearing dogs. That principle has already been conceded in relation to taxis. Thankfully, there are fewer examples of buses and trains refusing to take guide dogs and hearing dogs compared with taxis. However, the RNIB has found at least one example of a bus which refused to take a guide dog. The general exemption of public transport from the provisions of Part III make it necessary to spell out that obligation.

It is important that the Bill is amended to ensure that wider access issues are covered. Having audible announcements and good design practice would also be of benefit to those with poor eyesight, over and above those registered blind and partially sighted. Incidentally, audible announcements will probably be of assistance to tourists.

Finally, in Amendment No. 126 the expression: to be fully orientated whilst carried in the vehicle", means that someone who is blind or partially sighted knows which way he is facing—forwards, sideways or backwards—and where is the exit so that he can alight unaided. I beg to move.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I support these amendments. The noble Lord has put his finger on a very grave weakness in much of the transport provision in this country. Also I should point out that audible announcements would not only be beneficial for the blind but also for many other groups—foreign tourists, people who fall asleep and people who do not know the line generally. This provision will not hurt the rest of the community. Other groups—for example, dyslexics and those with learning disabilities who have problems with reading—may also benefit from the proposal. I can see no reason why such an amendment should not be incorporated in the Bill either now or at some future date.

Lord Carter

My Lords, we were glad to add our name to the amendments because they are important and we hope that the Minister will be able to deal with the important points that have been raised. I should declare an interest in that a member of my family is blind, has a hearing loss and is a user of a guide dog.

As it stands, the Bill does not address adequately the concerns of those with sensory impairments. Any regulations should address the need for clear, audible announcements, good lighting and clear signs with colour contrast. Regulations will allow variations in accessibility standards for rail vehicles according to networks, the class of vehicle and geographical region. However, the Bill does not stress the need to maximise uniform standards where that is eminently achievable. It is an anomaly that the Bill prevents taxis from discriminating in the carriage of service animals used by disabled people without making a direct reference to the obligations on public transport in general.

I know from the experience of a member of my family that audible announcements and colour contrast for the visually handicapped are extremely important. Perhaps I may give a simple example of an Underground station. Unless you know where you are getting off, you are sure about that and you are on a station with an island platform, there is a very real problem. The person may not know whether he is going across the platform towards the rail or along the platform towards the exit. If a blind person gets off a bus at the wrong stop but thinks it is the right stop, he will be completely disoriented and may spend a long time trying to find his way.

British Rail is very good at providing assistance. One may ring ahead to say that a disabled person is on the train in a particular coach and assistance will be provided at the station where the person alights. That is good. Of course, it happens at mainline stations but it does not happen at unstaffed stations.

On the whole, the stated policy of British Rail is quite good as regards the marking of stations and colour contrast, and so on; but, in practice, it does not seem to follow its own policy. I believe that I am correct in saying that the magnificent new Liverpool Street station is largely grey. Those concerned missed the opportunity to put in some colour contrast around the station so that the visually handicapped could see where the edges of steps are, where the railings are, and the rest of it. I dread to think what will happen with Railtrack as regards the mix-up of responsibility between the operating companies and the owners of the stations.

The other problem is parking on pavements. In our family, we carry around stickers provided by the pedestrians association. When we see a car which is parked on a pavement we place a sticker upon it which says, "Pavements are for pedestrians, not for cars". When the association issued the stickers, it had to issue a warning to all those who use them to be careful not to stick them on car windows because, if that involved the paintwork, they could be charged with causing damage to the car.

In the case of guide dogs, I cannot imagine that any operator of a public service or a rail vehicle would prevent a guide dog owner from travelling with his dog or allow that person to be separated from his dog. It is not that long ago, I know, that some guide dog owners were asked to travel with their dog in the guard's van. However, I am sure—at least, I hope I am—that that no longer applies.

There is also a problem with the Underground as regards escalators. One must never take a guide dog on a moving escalator because of the danger that could be caused to the dog's paws if they become caught. That means that a blind person either has to find in every tube station, or know where there is, a solid staircase; or he has to ask for the escalator to be stopped so that he can use it. In fact, when I have been travelling with my daughter, who uses a guide-dog, I have picked up the dog to save time and carried it on the up escalator. It has caused some consternation to those on the downward escalator to see a gentleman holding a large labrador in his arms as he goes up the escalator.

If anyone did try to separate a guide dog owner from his or her dog, that person should perhaps receive the rejoinder that was given by a guide dog owner whom I know well. She was offered entry to a restaurant so long as her dog stayed outside. She asked politely, "How would you get on if you were asked to leave your eyes at the door?"

I hope that the Government can assure us that the purpose of such admirable amendments is already covered by the Bill. If not, the Government should either accept them, or, if they cannot do so, they should take them away for redrafting and bring back suitable amendments on Third Reading which would deal with what seems to be an anomaly in the legislation and is a very real problem.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that I have my own group of amendments on public service vehicles and trains following those of my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I listened with interest to the debate and did not wish to comment, but we seem to be in the realms of personal experience. I listened intently to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I can recall well over 30 years ago, in an area that the noble Lord knows well, that I once took a blind gentleman from Preston Circus at Seven Dials in the rush hour. Well, I rather forgot, and the poor man had to cross the road at Seven Dials which is quite an undertaking. After that, I told all passengers when they asked for directions that I had a mind like a sieve and added, "Don't hesitate to ask me umpteen times; I shan't be the least offended, so go on doing it".

The audible announcements could be of help. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say on the matter. I should point out to your Lordships that there are dangers in allowing more than one dog on a vehicle at any one time. I witnessed an unfortunate incident in which one dog bit the other dog's owner. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister would like to comment on that and on whether it is wise to accept Amendment No. 156 on the face of the Bill. Although it appears immensely plausible, one can see the particular dangers at present when the weather is so hot and humid, which can affect a guide dog even more than a human being.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Teviot that the case that he cited would certainly be a much better story if it had been "man bites dog". I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for explaining what he was seeking to achieve by way of amendments. When I first saw the amendment which talks about being "fully orientated", I actually thought that it had something to do with the proverbial Glasgow man on a bus telling the world that he belonged to Glasgow on a Saturday night. However, my noble friend has now explained to me what his amendment actually means. Indeed, I had a rather interesting discussion about the various new techniques which are available for helping people—not in this case wheelchair users who, in a way, have tended to dominate our debate, but other people who are equally disabled when it comes to mobility.

First, I would like to make it absolutely clear that we intend the regulations made under the new clauses covering PSVs and rail vehicles to deal not only with the needs of wheelchair users but to make provision for the needs of other disabled people, including those who are blind, partially sighted, deaf or hard of hearing. There are provisions which we would propose to include in regulations which would help to ensure that visually impaired people could move about inside vehicles confidently. For example, the use of colour contrast on handrails and seating and improved lighting levels. We will also, through codes of practice, give guidance on how drivers and other transport staff can assist visually impaired people, for example, by giving them clear instructions about where the nearest suitable seat is located. That point in particular is already included in the Department of Transport's video, "Make it work", which provides disability awareness training for bus drivers, and it is also included in the new customer care training package which was launched recently by Bus and Coach Training Ltd.

As regards Amendments Nos. 127 and 146, I would point out that the list of items to be provided in accessibility regulations is not exhaustive. I accept that they may appear to be oriented towards the needs of wheelchair users, but my noble friend and other noble Lords who have taken part can be assured that we intend to build on the work which has already been done, in particular by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, in ensuring that the regulations make provision for sensory impaired people and ambulant disabled people, as well as those who use wheelchairs.

In relation to Amendments Nos. 126, 145 and 147 we would envisage that the codes of practice which will be issued to rail operators will deal with the issue of audible announcements. Indeed, the rail regulator's code of practice, Meeting the needs of disabled passengers, already covers this issue. As train development improves, the number of signs for disabled people in train carriages will increase and become more widespread around the country. We hope that announcements, too, will become clearer. I hope that that is the case whether one can hear in whole or in part. That would be a good thing. These issues will be covered.

I now turn to Amendment No. 156. The Public Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 already make certain provision for guide dogs on PSVs. However, as currently drafted, they do not cover hearing dogs and there are no similar legislative provisions covering rail vehicles. London Underground's conditions of carriage allow for any dog to be carried free of charge provided it is kept under control, which, of course, in the case of guide dogs should present no difficulties at all. But I accept that this is an issue which merits further consideration.

I hope that on the basis of the explanations I have given about our intentions, my noble friend will agree to withdraw these amendments. I shall take away, if I may, Amendment No. 156 to consider it in more detail. If we are persuaded that something more needs to be done, we shall bring forward appropriate amendments at a later stage.

Lord Carter

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and with the leave of the House, I hope I may make one point. As he says, Clause 46(2) is all about wheelchairs. It seems a shame that the Bill would appear to deal only with wheelchairs and everything else will be left to regulation. Will the Government consider whether they should at Third Reading introduce an amendment which would make it clear that adaptations to public service vehicles will not be just for wheelchair users? It is a common mistake to think just of that aspect when one is considering the matter. As we all know, there are many forms of disability. I believe that it would be helpful if the Government spelt out on the face of the Bill the sort of adaptations that they would expect rather than just those which appear to apply only in regard to wheelchairs, leaving everything else to regulation.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I shall consider what the noble Lord has said. I am sure he appreciates that in many ways the wheelchair problem, if I can call it that, is sometimes the more difficult one to resolve. I certainly hope that I have given enough clear assurance that we are dealing with accessibility for all disabled people and not just for wheelchair users. However, I shall consider the point that he has just made.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his extremely encouraging reply. I am delighted to hear that he will look seriously at all of the amendments, but in particular will bring Amendment No. 156 back himself, even though it may be redrafted at Third Reading.

He mentioned clear announcements. Like him, I suffer from unclear announcements on railway stations and other places, very often not because of the equipment but because the person who makes the announcements has not been taught how to use it properly. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 128 to 130:

Page 35, leave out line 23.

Page 35, line 24, leave out subsection (7).

Page 35, line 26, leave out ("or order").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 128 to 130. I beg to move them en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 131:

Page 35, line 27, after ("section") insert ("13, 14, 15, 16,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 131 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 132A, 133, 135, 151A, 153, 153A, 153B, 154, 155A and 174B. As usual, I have pleasure in declaring an interest. For many years I have been involved in the bus and coach industry.

This important Bill rightly makes provision for greater access to employment, goods and services for the disabled. My particular concern is about access to transport services. Much has been achieved but more remains to be done. I should like to pay tribute to the excellent services provided by community transport organisations and services such as Dial-A-Ride. The bus and coach industry has already embraced on a voluntary basis the need to improve accessibility of vehicles. All new vehicles, and the majority of those in service, now incorporate features recommended by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has taken us down memory lane. I very much take his point about people in wheelchairs. Years ago, as a conductor, I found that those who suffered the tortures of the damned were those who suffered from arthritis. They had great difficulty in boarding buses, sitting down, standing, getting off and having to orientate themselves in order to proceed further. That may be an area that DPTAC can look at. That body is probably already doing so, but what I say is completely off the cuff.

The recent voluntary introduction of low-floor buses has been welcomed, and trials are helping to get the new designs suitable for all terrain. The Confederation of Passenger Transport has welcomed the dialogue with the Department of Transport about how best to move towards greater accessibility. Clearly, in a Bill of this nature it is not possible to make provision for all eventualities. Some of the detail must be a matter for regulation at a later date. That is why I welcome the obligation upon future Ministers to consult before making regulations on certain types of transport.

Amendment No. 131 seeks to add to those parts of the Bill on which the Secretary of State is required to consult. It is recognised that Clauses 13 to 16 do not at present apply to any means of transport. However, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a reversal of that situation at a future date.

Amendment No. 132A recognises that it may not be appropriate to consult in all circumstances. Amendment No. 133 proposes two new subsections of Clause 46 which seeks to exclude heritage vehicles and vehicles in current use. A definition of heritage vehicles is included in a consequential amendment to Clause 60: Amendment No. 174B. It is also recognised that these regulations apply only to new vehicles. However, heritage enterprises often build replica vehicles, i.e. those that conform in appearance and character to earlier vehicles, when existing vehicles wear out. It is clearly important to ensure that those vehicles are brought within the exclusion.

Amendment No. 135 seeks to provide an additional option for the issue of an accessibility certificate. It links that new procedure with the issue of a certificate of initial fitness which all public service vehicles are required to possess.

Amendments. Nos. 151A, 153, 153A, 153B and 154 seek a requirement to consult before laying regulations or orders concerning rail and tramway vehicles. Additionally, it seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State shall have regard to the following: the time, the cost and the practicability of designing, testing, manufacturing and introducing rail vehicles with provision for wheelchair accommodation.

Finally, Amendment No. 155A deals with the exemption for road vehicles from accessibility regulations. It makes provision for the Secretary of State to provide a blanket exemption order. I beg to move.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I should state at the outset that we do not consider the provisions of Part III of the Bill to be appropriate for dealing with access to existing public transport. We made that clear in the early stages of the Bill. It is why transport vehicles are excluded from Part III and why we introduced provisions dealing with transport vehicles as free-standing amendments. In relation to those transport clauses we have ensured that consultation with interested parties is a key requirement. We believe that that should go far enough in providing reassurance for the transport industries and disability interests.

I also have to point out the DPTAC has a statutory duty in relation to transport issues, but it does not have expertise in other areas, for example, education or access to shops and public buildings. Amendment No. 131 is therefore misconceived in that it would require consultation on issues outside the committee's field of expertise. I have taken every opportunity to stress that we intend the accessibility regulations to apply only to new vehicles.

There are several other reasons, too, why I consider the first part of Amendment No. 133 unnecessary. First, it seeks to exclude heritage vehicles from Part III of the Bill, which deals with the general right of access to goods and services. But public transport vehicles generally are already excluded from that part of the Bill, and that general exemption also applies to heritage vehicles. Similarly, since the amendment would specifically exclude heritage vehicles from the scope of Clause 47, I can see no justification for then exempting them from the provisions of Clause 49. As drafted, that clause allows for special authorisations to be made for vehicles which would otherwise have to comply with the accessibility regulations. That in itself will allow us to deal with vehicles which might otherwise have to comply with the accessibility regulations. That in itself will allow us to deal with vehicles which might otherwise unreasonably be caught by the provisions.

I should like to take this opportunity to reassure my noble friend that we have no intention of undermining the tradition of heritage vehicles in this country. We are sure that the provisions in the Bill will give us the flexibility to ensure that we achieve that.

Turning to the second part of the amendment, which proposes to exclude "vehicles in current use", once again we have said as clearly as we can that the provisions will only apply to "new" vehicles. That was the concept first discussed in the other place and it is one to which we are totally committed. But even if there was a need to clarify this in the Bill—and I do not believe that there is—this particular amendment would not achieve it. The term "in current use" is not defined and as such would be open to the widest interpretation. Clearly, I could not accept that.

We intend that the system for issuing accessibility certificates is as simple and straightforward as possible. We do not want to add to bureaucracy or impose additional burdens on the industry. We have always envisaged that an accessibility certificate would be issued at the same time as a certificate of initial fitness. We have made that clear to industry.

Amendments Nos. 153 and 153A seek to make similar provisions for rail vehicles as Amendments Nos. 131 and 132A do for PSVs. I would extend the same arguments against this amendment.

It is clear that my noble friend, through a number of his amendments, is trying to ensure that consultation is an integral part in the preparation of regulations and orders under the provisions of this Bill. He need have no concerns about that as I can assure the House that full consultation, where appropriate, will be carried out.

In any event, Amendment No. 151A has no effect. There is no order-making power in Clause 53, and, even if we were to accept Amendment No. 153, there are no order-making powers in Part III on which the amendment could bite. The order-making power in Clause 54 is already subject to a consultation requirement.

I can see no justification for Amendment No. 154. We are making it clear in the Bill that accessibility regulations will apply only to new rail vehicles. We are committed to ensuring that heritage vehicles are not caught by the provisions of the accessibility regulations. The very fact that we are taking powers only for new vehicles will mean that there is no prospect of them being affected in the immediate future. In the longer term we would be able to realise our intention to exempt either by expressly excluding heritage vehicles from the scope of the regulations or by granting exemptions.

Turning to Amendment No. 153B, which seeks to establish a list of matters which should be considered as part of the regulation-making process, I would point out that these are issues which would as a matter of course be addressed. There is no need to make special provision for them, which only burdens the Bill to no additional advantage. Indeed, no Secretary of State acting properly could fail to take the matters listed in my noble friend's amendments into account.

Regulations under Clause 54 could lay down publication requirements. We believe that that approach is right. Applications will need to be considered on their merits and evaluated in the light of local conditions. That will not be achieved if we widen the provisions to include group applications, and I do not consider that to be a desirable way to approach the matter.

I hope that, with the reassurances that I have given and what I have said today about the whole issue of PSV vehicles, my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendments.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, in a few moments I shall withdraw them. I shall read every word that my noble friend has said, but there is one point which I hope I made clear to him and, if not, then I do so now. It is that I was aware that new vehicles are the only ones concerned in the regulations. However, I was talking about heritage vehicles and replicas. I do not believe that the Minister commented on the definition in Amendment No. 174B. He did not mention it. However, I am sure that the point can be sorted out.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, perhaps I may help my noble friend about replica vehicles. I had some trouble with the point myself today because one can have a new replica vehicle. It is a new vehicle built to look like a replica, and if it is built to an old design, it will fall within a pre-1999 class. We have covered the point because in that case the class, or the new vehicle, would not be caught if it is a replica vehicle. It is a little late at night to consider all this.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, in view of that, the best thing I can do is to withdraw the amendment and sit down. I am grateful to the Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 132:

Page 35, line 27, leave out ("49") and insert ("48").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 132A and 133 not moved.]

Clause 47 [Accessibility certificates]:

Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 134:

Page 35, line 30, at end insert ("after 1st January 1998").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that from the end of the previous discussion which I have just heard, the comments may have contained the answers to many of my questions. Both amendments concern a time limit for existing vehicles—not new vehicles—to have full access for disabled people. Amendment No. 134 was inspired by Age Concern, which was worried about rural areas and people not being able to use bus services as a result of the deregulation of older buses which are now in operation. However, if I heard him correctly, the Minister will not be looking favourably at any particular time limit. The same is true in relation to the proposal dealing with the rail service. I ask the Minister, however, as I shall move this amendment formally, whether he can give me an idea as to roughly when we can expect to have some sort of regulation and roughly when we can expect to find a general level of access to the services that are available. I beg to move.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I am sorry to tell the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that I am afraid I am unable to support his amendment as the date proposed is too early. The Department of Transport, as I hope my noble friend will confirm, proposes 1st January 1999 as the earliest specifiable date for a bus or coach. Further categories will fall into place after that date. For example, there is no accessible version of the minibus and midibus up to, say, a capacity of 30 passengers. Time has to be allowed for a suitable vehicle to be designed, tested and brought into production. As I hope the noble Lord will realise, this cannot be done in the next two-and-a-half years. These buses are particularly popular across the country, especially since deregulation in 1986.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I support these amendments. I can see the purpose behind them. It would be helpful if the Minister could give an answer (this is obviously a probing amendment) as to the sort of timetable that is envisaged and when he thinks these various adaptations and changes will come into effect.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, the last questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, are quite difficult to answer in a definitive way. As my noble friend Lord Teviot has just explained, one must not set unrealistic timetables in this regard because clearly they will be impossible to meet and still allow services in the countryside to continue. We certainly could not possibly envisage imposing the kind of timeframe proposed in Amendment No. 134 in the case of compliance with PSV accessibility regulations.

As I explained in Committee, although we are well advanced in the development of accessible PSVs, there remain some classes, most notably minibuses and coaches, where we do not yet have viable access solutions. We are committed to working with the industry on that, but it will take time to ensure that the solutions that are adopted can provide effective and sustainable transport services.

Manufacturers and operators would be unable to achieve the deadline which this amendment would impose. To stay in business, operators would have to resort to applications for special authorisations to continue to operate their vehicle fleets. That would impose an unreasonable burden on them and on the administrators. At the same time, the amendment would have failed to achieve its purpose of securing a fully accessible fleet.

I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that we are wholly committed to moving these provisions along as quickly as possible. But we also have to recognise the operational and economic issues. Losing bus and coach services would undermine public transport across the country; no one would have the services they want, and disabled people would not have secured the access to those services that we all want them to achieve.

I now turn to the noble Lord's other amendment, Amendment No. 155, which relates to rail vehicles. We have made it clear that the timetable for compliance with rail vehicle accessibility regulations will have to recognise the operating life of the vehicles, as well as the aspirations of disabled people. The intention behind the amendment is that all rail vehicles should meet the requirements of accessibility before the end of 1997. That is simply unreasonable. It would involve expensive modification and, more importantly, the premature scrapping of existing vehicles.

Even if the rail operators could afford to make the change within that timeframe, it is unlikely that manufacturers could meet the demand. Orders for rail vehicles are often delivered over a two to three-year period. But operators would have to be sure about the requirements of the accessibility regulations before they could place their orders. So the timeframe for compliance imposed by this amendment would effectively be reduced to perhaps a year or 18 months. That is simply unachievable and would be likely to result in the withdrawal of services across the country. I know that nobody wants that.

I do not want to be a bit of damp squib at this time of the evening, but there are some problems in this field. While solutions are available in some parts of the field, the problem is that difficulties remain. Therefore I am afraid that I am unable to advise the House to accept the noble Lord's amendment. I am sure that he will withdraw it. Equally, I should not like to hazard a guess as to the possible dates when this operation would begin. It is dependent on how successfully we can reach conclusions on technical solutions to some of the problems. I hope that, with that explanation and assurance, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

10 p.m.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for being so candid in his answer. Basically he is saying that we cannot do it so fast because the resources are not available. At 10 o'clock at night, when we are not able to put extra effort into this point for various reasons, many of them very practical, I will not press the matter. I thank the noble Lord for his answer; at least we know where we stand. I hope the pressure groups which inspired me to table the amendment will pay attention to what has been said and come forward at the next stage with an answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]

Clause 48 [Approval certificates]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 136 and 137:

Page 36, line 15, after ("examining") insert ("(if he thinks fit)").

Page 36, line 16, leave out ("if he thinks fit").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments. With the leave of the House I will move them en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 50 [Forgery of certificates and false statements]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 138 to 143:

Page 37, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert: ("(1) In this section "relevant document" means—

1. (a) a certificate of exemption issued under section 30 or 31;
2. (b) a notice of a kind mentioned in section 30(9) (b) or 31(8) (b);
3. (c) an accessibility certificate; or
4. (d) an approval certificate.").

Page 37, line 10, leave out ("certificate to which this section applies") and insert ("relevant document").

Page 37, line 11, leave out ("such a certificate") and insert ("a relevant document").

Page 37, line 12, leave out ("such a certificate") and insert ("a relevant document").

Page 37, line 14, leave out ("such a certificate") and insert ("a relevant document").

Page 37, line 21, leave out ("a certificate to which this section applies") and insert ("an accessibility certificate or an approval certificate").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments. With the leave of the House I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 52 [Fees]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 144:

Page 38, line 12, at end insert: ("( ) Before making any regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult such representative organisations as he thinks fit.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 53 [Rail vehicle accessibility regulations]:

[Amendments Nos. 145 to 147 not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 148 to 151:

Page 39, leave out line 4.

Page 39, line 11, after second ("vehicle") insert ("— (a)").

Page 39, line 12, at end insert ("and (b) first brought into use, or belonging to a class of vehicle first brought into use, after 31st December 1998;").

Page 39, line 21, at end insert: ("(7A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the time when a rail vehicle, or a class of rail vehicle, is to be treated, for the purposes of this section, as first brought into use. (7B) Regulations under subsection (7A) may include provision for disregarding periods of testing and other prescribed periods of use.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments. With the leave of the House I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 151A not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 152:

Page 39, line 25, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 153 to 155 not moved.]

Clause 54 [Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations]:

[Amendment No. 155A not moved.]

[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]

Clause 55 [Offences by bodies corporate etc.]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 157: Transpose Clauses 46 to 49, 51 to 55 and 50 to after Clause 33.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 56 [Application to Crown etc.]:

The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley) moved Amendment No. 158:

Page 41, line 1, after ("Police") insert (", the British Transport Police, the Royal Parks Constabulary or the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 158 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 159 to 165. In another place it was made clear that four occupations were to be excluded—the Armed Forces, the police, firefighters and prison staff. Amendments were passed to make clear that the Aimed Forces will not be covered by the Bill. Firefighters, prison officers and the MoD police were then specifically excluded.

The amendments now before us make minor additions to the existing exclusions, but remain within the four occupation groups. They exempt from the employment provisions prison custody officers, MoD firefighters, specially constituted national police forces—that is, the Atomic Energy Authorities Constabulary, British Transport police and the Royal Parks Constabulary.

That completes the list of occupations that we intend to exclude from the employment right and there is no power in the Bill to make more. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, we understand the purport of the Government's amendments and obviously debated them fairly thoroughly at Committee stage. In terms of the Armed Forces, we would not particularly dissent from the position of the Government. But it is clear that with some of the other services, where one does not expect every person involved to be in the "firing line"—to use a military metaphor:—in terms of police, the fire or prison service, there are occupations within those services which can be perfectly well occupied by people with a disability. It is important that that be remembered. Men and women serving in those disciplined forces may well incur an injury or disability in the course of their work and would like to feel that they would have the opportunity to continue their career and employment within those services in appropriate occupations, whether it be behind desks, in lost property, reception work or the like.

I appreciate that those services are exempt as they now stand, but I know that the Police Federation, and I understand that this may also apply to the Prison Officers' Association, would welcome reassurances that the Government will at least encourage the directors of those forces—chief constables and so forth—while respecting the fact that they are exempt from the operation of the Act, nonetheless to seek to make accommodation wherever possible for disabled officers, particularly those whose disability has been incurred in the course of service.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I start by expressing just a faint degree of surprise at the noble Baroness's remarks. She accepts that the Armed Forces should be excluded, which I welcome, and she made that quite clear at Report stage. What surprised me was that on Tuesday her noble friend Lord McCarthy said (at col. 177 of Hansard) that noble Lords on his side of the House had attempted to have the Armed Forces included in the Bill. I always find it rather confusing when different noble Lords from the Front Bench opposite make rather confusing statements.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, at the Committee stage we sought to include those occupations within the Armed Forces which were not in the firing line. However, we accepted the Minister's argument that one of the distinctions between the Armed Forces and the other civilian disciplined forces was that at the last resort every member of the Armed Forces—even, for example, canteen cooks—might be expected to bear arms and so on, and since then we have concentrated on the other services.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness says. We do not mind what the noble Baroness's noble friends say from the Back Benches, but we expect a degree of consistency from the Front Bench. The noble Baroness said perfectly clearly in Committee that she would not argue the case to include the Armed Forces in the employment provisions. I was therefore a little surprised by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on Tuesday that noble Lords on his side had attempted to have the Armed Forces included in the Bill. If the noble Lord wants to check his remarks, he can look at col. 177 of the Official Report for Tuesday, 18th July.

Lord McCarthy

My Lords, perhaps I may—

Lord Henley

No, my Lords, I am not going to take an intervention. I just make the point that I prefer to have a little consistency.

Lord McCarthy

My Lords, the noble Lord is amazingly easily surprised.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I just make the point that I expect some consistency.

Perhaps I may make one or two points in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I accept her remark that not all those in the police force or those whom I have just described are necessarily in the firing line, as she put it. The important point is exactly the same as the point we made about the Armed Forces. All those in the Armed Forces expect that they might be in the firing line.

Her more substantive point about those who acquire disabilities while they are in those services is perfectly valid. What I should like to do is to refer back to my experience from my time in the Ministry of Defence and my knowledge of the Armed Forces. Where people do acquire disabilities the Armed Forces bend over backwards to retain them where it is possible. If it is not possible, they will have to be discharged from the Armed Forces, but with pensions and so on. I note the noble Baroness's remarks about encouraging the other services to which she referred to retain, where it is possible, individual members with the disabilities that they have acquired without detriment to those services as a whole. That is obviously desirable. I see the odd nod from the noble Baroness opposite. I hope that she accepts the merits of the amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 159 to 165:

Page 41, line 1, leave out ("or").

Page 41, line 2, at end insert ("; or ( ) for purposes of a Minister of the Crown or government department having functions with respect to defence as a person who is or may be required by his terms of service to engage in fire fighting.").

Page 41, line 9, at end insert: ('"'British Transport Police" means the constables appointed, or deemed to have been appointed, under section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949;").

Page 41, line 20, leave out from second ("of) to end of line 24 and insert ("that Act;").

Page 41, line 24, at end insert: (""Royal Parks Constabulary" means the park constables appointed under the Parks Regulation Act 1872;").

Page 41, line 29, leave out ("and").

Page 41, line 30, at end insert ("; and United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary" means the special constables appointed under section 3 of the Special Constables Act 1923 on the nomination of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]

Clause 59 [Regulations and orders]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 167:

Page 42, line 18, at end insert ("or localities").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 169:

Page 42, line 29, after ("section") insert ("3(9)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 14 on Tuesday. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 170:

Page 42, line 35, at end insert: ("( ) Nothing in section 28(5), 46(6) or 53(5) affects the powers conferred by subsections (2) and (3).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 60 [Interpretation]:

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 171:

Page 42, line 36, at end insert: (""accessibility certificate" means a certificate issued under section 47(1) (a);").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 171 and speak to Amendments Nos. 172, 174, 174A, 175, 176, 177 and 178. Amendment No. 174A is a consequential amendment to Clause 60 resulting from the inclusion of trade organisations and clarifies the meaning of "benefits" for the purpose of Part II of the Bill. The remaining amendments to Clause 60, beginning with Amendment No. 171, are consequential amendments dealing with the interpretation of the terms which have been introduced in the transport clauses. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 172 to 174A:

Page 42, leave out line 37.

Page 42, line 38, at end insert: (""approval certificate" means a certificate issued under section 48(4);").

Page 42, line 38, at end insert: (""benefits", in Part II, has the meaning given in section 4(4);").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 174B not moved.]

Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 175 to 178:

Page 43, line 22, at end insert: (""PSV accessibility regulations" means regulations made under section 46(1);").

Page 43, line 24, at end insert: (""rail vehicle accessibility regulations" means regulations made under section 53(1);").

Page 43, line 28, leave out from (""taxi"") to end of line 30 and insert ("and "regulated taxi" have the meaning given in section 27;").

Page 43, line 30, at end insert: (""taxi accessibility regulations" means regulations made under section 27(1);").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 171. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 179:

Page 43, line 30, at end insert: (""trade organisation" has the meaning given in section (Discrimination by trade organisations).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 51.1 beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 62 [Short title, commencement, extent etc]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 180 and 181:

Page 44, line 8, leave out ("and (5)") and insert (", (5) and (6A)").

Page 44, line 17, at end insert: ("(6A) In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies whose members are disqualified) in each case insert at the appropriate places—

• "The National Disability Council."
• "The Northern Ireland Disability Council."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 7 [Modifications of this Act in its Application to Northern Ireland]:

Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 182:

Page 55, leave out line 11 and insert: ("(2) In section (taxi accessibility regulations) (5) for the definition of "taxi" substitute — "taxi" means a vehicle which—

1. (a) is licensed under Article 61 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to stand or ply for hire; and
2. (b) seats not more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 183 to 195. As the House will be aware, Northern Ireland has its own separate body of legislation and administrative structures. Schedule 7 sets out modifications to the provisions of the Bill so that they fit in with existing Northern Ireland legislation and structures. These amendments contain some further modifications to Schedule 7 and ensure that the provisions of the Bill are implemented in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom. For those reasons I invite the House to accept them. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 183 to195:

Page 55, line 16, after second ("the") insert ("taxi").

Page 55, line 18, leave out from ("apply") to end of line 22 and insert ("if, immediately before the grant of the licence, such a licence is in force with respect to the vehicle.").

Page 55, line 33, at end insert:

(".—(1) In section (PSV accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (PSV accessibility regulations) (5) for the definition of "public service vehicle" substitute— "public service vehicle" means a vehicle which—

1. (a) seats more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver; and
2. (b) is a public service vehicle for the purposes of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981;".

(3) In section (PSV accessibility regulations) (8) for the words from "the Disabled" to the end substitute "such representative organisations as it thinks fit".

.—(1) In section (Accessibility certificates) (2) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Accessibility certificates) for subsections (3) and (4) substitute—

"(3) Any person who uses a regulated public service vehicle in contravention of this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.".

.—(1) In section (Approval certificates) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Approval certificates) (1) for "he" substitute "it".

(3) In section (Approval certificates) (6) for "his" substitute "its".

. In section (Special authorizations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

.—(1) In section (Reviews and appeals) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Reviews and appeals) (2) for "him" substitute "it".

(3) In section (Reviews and appeals) (6) for "he" substitute "it" and for "his" substitute "its".

.—(1) In section (Fees) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Fees) (2) for "him" substitute "it" and at the end add "of Northern Ireland".

.—(1) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (6) in the definition of "rail vehicle" for the words "on any railway, tramway or prescribed system" substitute "by rail".

(3) Omit section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (7).

(4) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (9) for the words from "the Disabled" to the end substitute "such representative organisations as it thinks fit".

.—(1) In section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (3) for the words "the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other persons as he" substitute "such persons as it" and for "he" substitute "it". . Omit section (Offences by bodies corporate etc.) (3).").

Page 59, line 30, at end insert: ("( ) In section 56(5) (a) omit the words from ", the British" to the end.").

(".—(1) In section (PSV accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (PSV accessibility regulations) (5) for the definition of "public service vehicle" substitute— "public service vehicle" means a vehicle which—

1. (a) seats more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver; and
2. (b) is a public service vehicle for the purposes of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981;".

(3) In section (PSV accessibility regulations) (8) for the words from "the Disabled" to the end substitute "such representative organisations as it thinks fit".

.—(1) In section (Accessibility certificates) (2) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Accessibility certificates) for subsections (3) and (4) substitute —

"(3) Any person who uses a regulated public service vehicle in contravention of this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.".

.—(1) In section (Approval certificates) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Approval certificates) (1) for "he" substitute "it".

(3) In section (Approval certificates) (6) for "his" substitute "its".

. In section (Special authorizations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

.—(1) In section (Reviews and appeals) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Reviews and appeals) (2) for "him" substitute "it".

(3) In section (Reviews and appeals) (6) for "he" substitute "it" and for "his" substitute "its".

.—(1) In section (Fees) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Fees) (2) for "him" substitute "it" and at the end add "of Northern Ireland".

.—(1) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (6) in the definition of "rail vehicle" for the words "on any railway, tramway or prescribed system" substitute "by rail".

(3) Omit section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (7).

(4) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (9) for the words from "the Disabled" to the end substitute "such representative organisations as it thinks fit".

.—(1) In section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".

(2) In section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (3) for the words "the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other persons as he" substitute "such persons as it" and for "he" substitute "it". . Omit section (Offences by bodies corporate etc.) (3).").

Page 59, line 31, at end insert: ("( ) omit the definitions of "British Transport Police", "Royal Parks Constabulary" and "United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary";").

Page 59, line 42, leave out ("and").

Page 59, line 45, at end insert: (".Omit section (Application to Parliament)").

Page 60, line 24, at end insert: ("(7) Subsection (1) does not require an order under section (Special authorizations) which applies only to a specified vehicle, or to vehicles of a specified person, to be made by statutory rule. (8) Nothing in section (PSV accessibility regulations) (6) or (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (5) affects the powers conferred by subsections (2) and (3).").

Page 60, leave out line 27 and insert: (""accessibility certificate" means a certificate issued under section (Accessibility certificates) (1) (a);").

Page 60, line 29, at end insert: (""approval certificate" means a certificate issued under section (Approval certificates) (4);").

Page 60, line 51, at end insert: (""public service vehicle" and "regulated public service vehicle" have the meaning given in section (PSV accessibility regulations); PSV accessibility regulations" means regulations made under section (PSV accessibility regulations) (1); rail vehicle" and "regulated rail vehicle" have the meaning given in section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations); rail vehicle accessibility regulations" means regulations made under section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (l);").

Page 61, leave out lines 10 to 15 and insert: (""taxi" and "regulated taxi" have the meaning given in section (Taxi accessibility regulations); taxi accessibility regulations" means regulations made under section (Taxi accessibility regulations) (1); vehicle examiner" means an officer of the Department of the Environment authorised by that Department for the purposes of sections (Accessibility certificates) and (Approval certificates)''').

Page 61, line 17, at end insert: ("(3) In section 60(6) for "1944" substitute "(Northern Ireland) 1945".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 196 and 197:

Page 62, leave out line 13.

Page 62, leave out lines 19 to 26.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

House adjourned at thirteen minutes past ten o'clock.