Clause
50
Carrying
of passengers in wheelchairs in vehicles providing local
services
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Knight:
I have raised this matter with the Minister
before. She gave me an encouraging reply, but I should like it to be
placed on the record again, particularly as clause 50 relates to the
carrying of passengers in wheelchairs in vehicles providing local
services, and clause 51 contains supplementary provisions. I should
declare an interest as chairman of the all-party historic vehicles
group, but I should like the Minister again to confirm that nothing in
clause 50 or clause 51 can be used to prevent historic vehicles from
carrying members of the public as part of a balanced passenger
transport provision. That is particularly important for tourist areas
where historic vehicles—some of them are not even powered by the
internal combustion engine; some are steam vehicles—are still
used to carry passengers. It would be an over-the-top, heavy-handed
approach if they were caught by this
provision.
Ms
Winterton:
As the right hon. Gentleman set out, clause 50
will apply certain duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
to drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles who provide local bus
services, known as taxi buses, using a wheelchair-accessible vehicle.
The duties include helping a person in a wheelchair to get in and out
of a taxi, carrying them in safety and comfort and not making an
additional charge for doing so. The clause signals the
Government’s clear commitment to delivering more accessible
taxis and to making it easier for disabled passengers to use public
transport. This discussion refers back to our earlier discussion in
which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned historic vehicles. I can
assure him that this provision will not affect that. The clauses are
about duties on drivers. As I said, accessibility regulations fall
under part V of the DDA and relate to vehicle standards. They would be
covered in that
way.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 50
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
51
Carrying
of passengers in wheelchairs: supplementary
provisions
Norman
Baker:
I beg to move amendment No. 259, in clause 51, page
45, line 6, leave out ‘may’ and insert
‘shall’.
This
simple amendment would change the word “may” to
“shall”. In my view, a licensing authority ought to
maintain a list of vehicles falling within subsection (2) of proposed
new section 36A of the 1995 Act if it is serious about undertaking its
responsibilities under that Act. It is important that it has an
up-to-date picture of which vehicles are available in its area and
which are not. If it only has the option of maintaining a list, there
may be areas where that information is not
available.
In addition,
when an authority, either a different one or the same one, is
proposing, say, a quality contract scheme it is important to understand
the range of vehicles that are available in an area when it draws up
conditions that it wishes to see under the quality contract. However,
under these provisions, it may not have that information available,
which is a gap that ought to be filled. Those are the reasons why I
believe that the word “may” should be changed to
“shall”.
Ms
Winterton:
The amendment is to a clause that was inserted
into the Bill in another place in response to a very well-argued
proposal made by Baroness Chapman, who is certainly a doughty
campaigner on this issue. The clause, in conjunction with clause 50,
will place certain duties on the drivers of wheelchair-accessible taxi
buses—that is, taxis and private hire vehicles used to provide
local bus services—when carrying passengers in wheelchairs. The
provisions will make it optional for local authorities to maintain a
list of such wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Once such a list was in
place, the duties in section 36 of the 1995 Act would apply to the
drivers of taxi buses designated as wheelchair accessible. Those duties
include helping a person in a wheelchair to get in and out of a taxi,
carrying them in safety and comfort and not making an additional charge
for doing so. Failure to observe the duties could lead to a criminal
prosecution and
fine.
4.45
pm
The amendment
would place an obligation on all local licensing authorities to
maintain a list of vehicles being used to provide wheelchair accessible
taxi buses. However, we do not think that that is either necessary or
desirable. As I have said, the Bill allows local licensing authorities
the option of maintaining the list if they have wheelchair accessible
taxi buses that provide services in their area and they decide to
designate them. That is in line with the Government’s general
policy on taxis.
Local
licensing authorities are normally given particular powers, but they
are able to use their own discretion about whether to use them. There
are about only 200 taxi buses that provide local bus services, although
we hope that that figure will rise as a result of other provisions in
the Bill. Only some of those taxi buses will be wheelchair accessible.
Also, not all local
licensing authorities will have taxi buses operating in their area, so
there will be no need either to designate wheelchair accessible taxi
buses or to maintain a
list. I understand the
thrust of the amendment, but it would place an unnecessary burden on
local authorities. I hope that I can therefore persuade the hon. Member
for Lewes to withdraw the
amendment.
Norman
Baker:
I am not sure that the amendment would be an
unnecessary burden on local authorities if they had to make a nil
return each year, which is what the Minister implied in relation to not
many local authorities having taxi buses. If there are only 200 taxi
buses in the country—she accepts that the number should
increase—one way to secure an increase is perhaps for local
authorities to realise through the mandatory compilation of a list just
how few they have in their areas and how difficult it is for those with
disabilities to get around because of the absence of such
vehicles.
The Minister
has given me no confidence that the current system will engender an
increase of the kind that she and I wish to see. She also has not taken
account of the other points that I made, such as the need to be able to
take a quick metaphorical photograph of how many vehicles there are in
an area, for future planning purposes. However, I do not intend to go
to the stake over this, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
51 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
52
Permits
in relation to use of vehicles by educational and other
bodies
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
I rise to ask the Minister to clarify the
intention of the clause. The Transport Act 1985 enables permits to be
granted to educational, religious, social, welfare and other bodies so
that they do not need a public service vehicle operator licence. Is it
the purpose of the clause to take that to a new level? I understand
that the 1985 Act covers all possible vehicles, so does the clause mean
that if a vehicle carries fewer than nine passengers no permit will be
required, and that therefore an educational body that operates a
vehicle with fewer than nine seats will not require a permit as per the
1985
Act?
Ms
Winterton:
Clause 53 will make amendments that are
consequential to the provision in clause 52, which extends the scope of
section 19 permits to cover vehicles with fewer than nine seats. Such
vehicles are not what most of us would consider a bus. That will allow
educational and other bodies to provide transport services for their
members. Clause 52 will also strengthen the requirements on bodies to
keep records to aid better
enforcement.
Clause 52
extends the scope of section 19 permits to cover vehicles with fewer
than nine seats. As the hon. Gentleman says, the amendment replaces
“bus” with
“vehicle” in the relevant legislation. The provision will
ensure that those bodies can use vehicles with fewer than nine sets for
educational and other transport, but because the vehicle might not be
what most of us would recognise as a bus, we have changed its title
from “bus” to
“vehicle”.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 52
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
5
3
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
54
relaxation
of rules relating to community bus
services
Mr.
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 243, in
clause 54, page 47, line 33, at
end insert—
‘(4A) In
subsection (2)(b) after “permit”, insert “or has
undertaken such training for drivers of vehicles for the purpose of
community transport as the Secretary of State shall by order
define.”.
(4B) In
subsection (2) after paragraph (c)
insert—
“(d) the
driver is not employed by, nor is the vehicle owned by, an operator
whose annual turnover is more than £150,000 per annum, or such
higher amount as the Secretary of State may by order
define.”’.
As
I said on Second Reading, any proposals with the consequence of helping
community transport will certainly enjoy my support, and the clause
will do that by allowing larger vehicles to be used for community
transport and by removing the prohibition on paying drivers of
community transport
vehicles.
The clause is
very welcome, but not perfect. I have two major concerns, which are
reflected in my proposals. The first proposal is important, because it
goes to the question of safety. We want to introduce words that would
ensure that community transport drivers were adequately trained. Later
this year, a new certificate of professional competence will
be introduced for drivers of other buses and coaches. The CPC will be
issued on behalf of the Department for Transport, in accordance with
the law, and will be a requirement for all professional bus drivers, in
addition to a driving
licence.
Rightly in my
opinion, the CPC is not a requirement for drivers of community
vehicles—we want to establish greater community transport.
However, there is specialist community transport training available in
the form of MIDAS—the minibus driver awareness scheme.
Therefore, although community transport drivers do not face the higher
test, the lower test would help to ensure safety. MIDAS addresses
issues such as driver confidence and passenger safety and comfort. That
is a useful way forward and something that the Secretary of State could
define by order: community transport drivers would get the specialist
training required for their vehicles, giving reassurance to those using
that transport but without having to fulfil the much higher
test.
Another proposal
looks at what we might call the social businesses or the
not-for-dividend sector. A number of community transport schemes
provide an excellent service, but I am concerned at the scope for some
non-professional bus operators to take advantage
of a loophole in the legislation. There are a number of operators who
turn over large amounts and who, potentially, would not require a
licence. I want to
ensure that cowboy operations do not take advantage of the rules for
community transport providers. The amendment relates to those community
transport organisations, which are clearly focused on being not for
dividend, although they follow some commercial strictures. For example,
we all know that Ealing Community Transport provides an excellent
service across the country and it decidedly could not be called a
cowboy. However, unless there is a turnover test—I am not sure
that I have got the turnover level right—the clause could become
a loophole for cowboys to provide a service under the guise of
community transport, which is a term that should describe organisations
that provide transport in communities for those who have difficulty
getting around or that provide a service in excess of the norm. Perhaps
a number of charities and others would use
it.
These proposals are
important. Will the Minister give reassurance that the turnover test is
not necessary? If it is not necessary, will she explain how cowboy bus
operators will be prevented from using the clause? Will she also us why
the lower level of driver training cannot be put in place relatively
cheaply to provide some reassurance to those people who will use
community
transport?
Ms
Winterton:
The measure is extremely popular and it has
been widely welcomed by the community transport sector for two reasons:
it will allow community bus services to use larger buses and remove the
restriction that prevents drivers of those services from being paid.
That welcome from the community transport sector is one reason why I
was surprised that Opposition Front Benchers voted against the Bill on
Second Reading. We will all have received representations from our
constituents who have tried to run those excellent services but have
been constrained in how they can do
so.
The clause relates
to the section 22 permits that are available to the operators of
community bus services. The services we discussed before were the
section 19 aspect of community service. Section 22 permits allow a
non-profit-making voluntary body that is concerned with the social and
welfare needs of a community to provide local bus services for the
general public. Unlike section 19 permits, they can be issued only by
the traffic commissioners, who must be satisfied that the body using
the permit has adequate maintenance
arrangements.
As I
said, operators who provide services under the permits are restricted
to using vehicles that can carry between nine and 16 passengers. The
clause will enable buses with more than 16 passenger seats to be used
to provide community transport services under section 22
permits.
Also under
current legislation, drivers of such services cannot be paid, as I
said. However, many people, particularly from the community transport
sector, told the Government that that places an unnecessary restriction
on the provision of the services, because it is often not possible for
community groups to find enough volunteer drivers to run them. The
clause will remove that restriction.
Graham
Stringer:
I hope that the answer to this question, which
my right hon. Friend might send in a letter, will allow us not to have
a debate on new clause 1. Will these drivers be subject to the same
vetting procedures as drivers of hackney carriages and private hire
vehicles? Will they have to be a fit and proper person? Preferably,
they will be vetted in relation to whether they are on the sex
offenders
register.
Ms
Winterton:
The clause will require operators of community
transport services to check that every person driving a vehicle on
their behalf is not on the sex offenders
register.
Stephen
Hammond:
Does that include a Criminal Records Bureau
check?
Ms
Winterton:
I want to address the point on the public sex
offenders register, which is what I think
the—
5
pm
Sitting
suspended for Divisions in the
House.
5.33
pm
On
resuming—
Ms
Winterton:
I refer back to the point that I made in
response to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley, which
referenced his new clause, which would require operators of community
transport services to check that everybody driving a vehicle on their
behalf is not registered on the sex offenders register. I want to make
it clear that the Bill does not provide for that, but I emphasise the
existing safeguards and checks on community transport drivers. Much of
the work of community transport organisations will be done under a
contract to a local authority or other public body, which can make it a
condition of contract that the drivers used have all been subject to a
criminal record check. Where necessary, that check can be to the
enhanced level of enclosure to provide all the information to the
Criminal Records Bureau.
In addition,
the Government are now implementing the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups
Act 2006, which obtained Royal Assent in November 2006, and which was
introduced specifically in response to recommendation 19 of the Bichard
inquiry report. The Act provides the legal framework for the new
independent safeguarding authority scheme. Under the SVG Act, those who
exclusively transport children and/or vulnerable adults are subject to
the requirements of the new scheme. The ISA’s role will be to
consider all relevant information relating to the risk of harm posed by
persons seeking to work with children or vulnerable adults in either a
paid or voluntary capacity, and to bar those considered unsuitable for
such work. The scheme will be launched in October 2009; that will allow
systems to be developed and legislation laid, and it will give
organisations time to prepare for the introduction of the most robust
and thorough vetting and barring scheme.
I will ensure that the Home
Office is aware of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for
Manchester, Blackley about drivers of community
transport. As I said, new clause 1 is not included in our debate, but I
shall ensure that the Home Office is aware of what has been
said. As for amendment
No. 243, moved by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, I can tell him that
safety is obviously an important consideration in the operation of
community transport. However, we have to consider whether there is a
problem and if so whether what he proposes is the right solution.
Section 22 operators are a relatively rare breed, and we obviously
cannot draw many conclusions about their safety record from that small
sample. When we consider the much larger body of community transport
that operates under section 19 permits, which includes both paid and
unpaid volunteer drivers, there is no evidence that volunteer drivers
are unsafe compared to those driving similar vehicles
commercially.
Road
accident statistics are generally based on vehicle type rather than
usage. The minibus category is split three ways—between purely
private use, the voluntary sector and the commercial sector. The safety
record is pretty high across the board. Only recently did it become a
legal requirement for commercial bus drivers to undergo formal
training, as distinct from passing the appropriate driving test,
although the requirement does not come into force until September. At
the moment, therefore, we do not have much evidence about its effect on
road safety.
I accept
that the amendment would not require the full rigours of the commercial
training regime to be imposed on voluntary drivers, although that would
be the logical outcome of the arguments being put forward. The
voluntary sector itself provides a great deal of training. For good
reasons, it has always done so. Apart from the question of public
safety, it would not be sensible to put rather expensive vehicles into
the hands of incompetent drivers.
I am not opposed to training,
but the question is one of proportionality. We have to bear in mind
that if we were to require the community transport sector to undertake
what could be fairly rigorous training, it would place quite a burden
on it. We must put that in the context of the later part of the
amendment, which is about a scheme being not for
profit.
The existing
regulation-making power could be used to impose a training requirement
on the drivers of vehicles used under section 22 permits. That is
already in the Bill, so that part of the hon. Gentleman’s
amendment is unnecessary for technical reasons. Although I am rejecting
the amendment, I assure him that I do not rule out the introduction of
a driver training requirement if a real need for it is identified in
future.
Stephen
Hammond:
The Minister says that the amendment is
technically unnecessary because there is something else about training
in the Bill. Will she tell us where in the Bill it
is?
Ms
Winterton:
As it happens, it is under section 21 of the
Transport Act
1985.
Stephen
Hammond:
Divine inspiration.
Ms
Winterton:
I turn to the second part of the amendment,
which would place a limit on the annual turnover of a community bus
operator. It has always been a requirement of the permit regimes for
the voluntary sector that buses are not operated with a view to profit,
either directly or indirectly. I understand that the bodies that
currently operate under section 22 permits are very small, and that the
services that they operate are, almost by definition, ones that would
not be of interest to a commercial operator.
We hope that such services will
expand; members of the Committee have already made points about the
rural bus sector. Such services provide the community transport sector
with a lot of opportunities to expand, but I do not imagine that it
will be in a position to compete with commercial operators, nor do I
believe that it would want to. That part of the amendment is,
therefore, not necessary either, because it is already covered in the
permit regime. I hope that has answered the questions asked by the hon.
Member for
Wimbledon.
The hon.
Gentleman also asked about cowboys, and I draw his attention to section
22(3) of the 1985 Act, which
states:
“A
traffic commissioner shall not grant a community bus permit unless he
is satisfied that there will be adequate facilities or arrangements for
maintaining in a fit and serviceable condition any vehicle used under
the permit.”
I hope that I
have illustrated that although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s
points about safety and not-for-profit restrictions, those matters are
adequately covered under the current
system.
Stephen
Hammond:
The Minister has come a long way towards my
position. In 1985, the Conservative Administration obviously had the
foresight to bring in measures that she believes I do not need to
insert into the Bill. I think that she would none the less
agree—this is one reason why I wished to explore the
matter—that the clause potentially allows a larger number of
drivers in the community transport field, in some cases driving bigger
vehicles than they have driven before. The whole matter of safety must
be considered, and I hope that the Minister will think again. My
amendment does not specify what has to be done, but it gives the
Secretary of State the chance to define safety training by order at
some stage. That is extremely important, as my concern is that the Bill
will widen the field of people who operate the vehicles in
question.
Norman
Baker:
It is my understanding that drivers who want to
drive public vehicles with more than 16 seats have to acquire public
service vehicle approval. Far more training would be required to drive
a vehicle with 16 seats so, in a sense, although I am sympathetic to
the hon. Gentleman’s point, I assume that the extra training is
already in place to some
degree.
5.45
pm
Stephen
Hammond:
The hon. Gentleman may be right. Some of that
training might be in place. None the less, specialist training is
available for community transport under MIDAS, which is why I hoped
that the Minister would mention it.
I come now to my point about
cowboys. The Conservative Administration again showed great foresight
in 1985. I was talking not about vehicles and safety requirements, but
those operating them as a commercial route and not following all the
necessary requirements, when the route was intended to be a community
transport route. I hear what the Minister had to say, but that is not
the representation I have received from various parts of the industry.
There is real concern that rogue—rather than
cowboy—operators might try to use the community transport clause
that we all support and want to work as a means of getting round some
of the provisions that would usually be set, which is why the test is
in place.
I have
listened carefully to the Minister and to her reassurances that my
amendment is technically not necessary. I shall be watching matters
closely. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
54 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 55
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
