![]() House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Equality Bill |
Equality Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall, Eliot Wilson,
Committee Clerks attended
the Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 2 July 2009(Morning)[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]Equality BillWritten evidence to be reported to the HouseE61-
Equality and Diversity Forum (additional memorandum)
Clause 157Exemption
from taxi accessibility
regulations 9
am
The
Solicitor-General (Vera Baird): I beg to move amendment
286, in
clause 157, page 116, line 33, leave
out Great Britain and insert England and
Wales. The effect of
this amendment is to restrict the application of clause 157
to England and
Wales.
The
Solicitor-General: The amendment relates to the
application of the clause to Scotland. An error was made in the first
place. Amendment
286 agreed
to. Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill. Mr.
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): I will not trouble the
Committee for too long. I just think that now is a useful opportunity
to ask the Solicitor-General to look again at the provision before we
return to it on Report. She will be aware that in February the
Department for Transport published a consultation paper on improving
access to taxis. I think that all the responses are back, but I have
not seen any information from the Department. I think it is in order to
discuss the matter because one option in the consultation document
requires primary legislation. Given that we are transferring measures
from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to the Bill, a change is
needed in the provision on which the Government were
consulting. Will
the hon. and learned Lady touch on where the consultation process has
got to, describe the responses and say what the Department for
Transport is likely to do? If primary legislation is the option
favoured by the Government, the measure will need to be amended. A
specific option is to allow local authorities to enforce section 36 of
the DDA on taxis to ensure that the policy takes place in actuality
rather than just in
name. Without
veering too far from the Bill, it might be helpful to explain the
changes. The Government have been consulting on how to improve access
to licensed taxis and equality of opportunity for disabled people. A
number of local authorities have implemented an accessible-taxi policy,
but a lot have not and only about half the licensed taxis in the
country can be described as wheelchair-accessible. I assume from the
words can be described as wheelchair-accessible that
that is being
generous. In
one third of licensing authorities, less than 10 per cent. of taxis are
wheelchair-accessible and 16 authorities have no wheelchair-accessible
taxis. Just copying across the DDA regulations to the Bill means that
that state of affairs will continue, which is not
satisfactory. The
Government have been consulting on a policy to improve access to taxi
fleets in line with the objectives under the clause to improve access
to jobs and enable people to have better access to services and other
social networks. That is squarely within the goods and services
measures in the Bill and their attempt to improve accessibility for
people. Recent court cases have highlighted or challenged local
authority policies that require a proportion of taxi fleets to be
wheelchair-accessible. The Government were looking at using
regulation-making powers under the DDA to require local authorities to
have an accessibility standard for a taxi fleet in their area and
ensure compliance. One policy option is primary legislation that would
require changes under the Bill. Another is the introduction of an
accessible-taxi standard by 2025. The third option is the introduction
of a standard in line with the existing enhanced standard by 2025, or
application of an interim standard in urban areas and areas with high
levels of illness by
2020. Those
options clearly have different costs. The first, unsurprisingly, would
be the most expensive, with a value of around £2.7 million,
although the benefits have not been calculated. The benefits would be
significant and, I suspect, would outweigh the costs. It would be
helpful if the Solicitor-General set out where the DFT has got to. If
changes are needed in primary legislation, they are clearly not here
now. If there are to be such legislative changes, perhaps she will say
whether we are likely to have them on Report and when that is likely to
be, because it might be a good opportunity to introduce the
amendments. Mr.
Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): As the Committee may
knowmy hon. Friend doesI preceded him some time ago in
holding Conservative Front-Bench responsibilities on disability. It is
obviously an area of great importance in terms of services. The
important thing is that there is adequate supply of vehicles to get
people with disabilities to where they wish to go, which should be the
main objective. I am not for a moment suggesting that that objective is
not shared between usit is. However, there is a long history in
a range of subjects, from the conduct of further education colleges,
for which I had some responsibility at one stage, through accessible
taxis to a variety of other cases on which the House legislates and
local authorities do as little as possible until the last possible
moment and are then forced and dragged into doing better. Intervening
legislation since the DDA was designed to sharpen up their act, and I
supported
that. At
the same time, in the real world no one wants to create a situation in
which we run out of taxis or wheelsputting it more bluntly and
less technicallyto get people around. I realise that the
Government have to balance that consideration. Will the
Solicitor-General,
in responding to my hon. Friends specific questions, also say
more about her general take on how that is to be done? In particular,
how does the hackney carriage licenceI confess not to be an
expert on how that is normally expresseddiffer from the private
hire licence? To what extent are private hire operators covered by
other provisions in the Bill, and not, as it were, exempt? Will she
explain how it should
operate?
Mr.
Harper: My hon. Friend has highlighted an interesting
issue about the difference between hackney carriages and taxis, which
is what the regulations apply to, and private hire vehicles. The point
of the clause is to allow for an exemption if the local authority
thinks that, by insisting on some accessible taxis, all the taxis would
flip over to being private hire vehicles. As well as thinking about
what the consultation on improving access to taxis does, the Government
ought to think about whether it makes sense for that regulation to
apply for taxis but to have nothing similar for private hire vehicles.
We could have all the taxis threatening to switch over to being private
hire vehicles and the local authority saying, Fine, okay
then, but we could then end up with no accessible taxis at
all. For
disabled people, the important thing in the difference between taxis
and private hire vehicles is that private hire vehicles have to be
booked in advance. It would not be acceptable if disabled people were
not able to get transport without having to plan ahead, just as
everyone else can. If they could only book ahead, that would be a
diminution of their freedom and ability to move. Will my hon. Friend
comment on
that?
Mr.
Boswell: My hon. Friend has read my mindthat was
to be the second part of my remarks. It is an early hour of a Thursday
morning, so I cannot resist the temptation, because it reflects a great
human spirit, to quote a Labour Foreign Secretary of many years ago and
of great repute, Ernie Bevin, who once defined his wish for free
movement as wanting to be able
to go
down to Victoria station... take a ticket and go where the hell I
like. That
is exactly the point about taxis: people do not want to feel that
because they have a disability they have to tie themselves down to
pre-purchase. They should be able to use
taxis. I
want to respond to my hon. Friends point so, in parenthesis, my
experience doing the Front-Bench job, when I was bringing a large
number of people with disabilities into the House, was somewhat mixed.
There were occasionsI appreciate that the clause does not refer
to the metropolitan areawhen we went to New Palace Yard and
found some difficulty in getting the taxi to
accommodate. My
first concern is a generic one about the extent to which the duties
bite across the whole of the fleet, which may be available to disabled
people, and how that will be balanced out. Secondly, I appreciate that
we do not want to create another inspectorate at the centre, but I want
from the Government a handle on the extent to which adequate provision
is being
made. My
third point concerns the criteria under which local authorities may
bring this measure forward. As explained in the explanatory notes, it
appears to be a fairly rigorous test: they would have to apply and make
a case, which would have to be run past the Disabled Persons Transport
Advisory Committee. I hope that would happen and that it will be a
rigorous
test. Clearly,
one could refer to islands where it might be more difficult to provide
such a service. However, the normal presumption should be that the
taxis will be accessible and there should be as few exemptions as
possible. If there are to be exemptions, they should be properly
evidenced and explained, not just nodded
through. Clause
157 sets up the framework, but it is important that we have an
understanding that it will not be a fiction and used as a whitewash
whereby local authorities walk away from their duties or find ways to
avoid them, and that it will not lead to a diminution of service across
the piece for disabled people, which is a common concern of the
Committee. I think that all that can be achieved, but I would like the
Solicitor-Generals assurance that it will
be.
The
Solicitor-General: We decided last year to take a fresh
look at how we can achieve our objective of enhancing accessible-taxi
provision, and there was a consultation that closed on 24 April. We
asked members of the public, groups and organisations whether the
regulations were the right way to deal with the issue. We are still
analysing all that. Many of the issues raised by hon. Gentlemen have
absolute reality and I accept that completely. The possibility of
people migrating to become private hire only is an issue that we must
countenance. The possibility that there could be an area in which there
were no accessible taxis because of the provision is something we need
to look at.
There are
protections within the four corners of clause 154, which deals with the
issue properly, whereas clause 157 deals with exemptions. There has to
be a consultationthe hon. Gentleman referred to the Disabled
Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The Secretary of State has to be
satisfied that any exemption is appropriate, and he or she can put
terms upon it. However, I readily accept that there is a need for us to
come back and say to the House what we will do about the
issue.
Mr.
Boswell: I appreciate that the Solicitor-General is in
some difficulty because she does not speak for the Department for
Transport, but will she ensure that it at least takes seriously the
continuing monitoring of the situation, as well as setting up the
framework on day one, which I am sure it will do plausibly and
sensibly? However, it is delivery that will
matter.
The
Solicitor-General: Yes, I will, and we will have the
responses to the consultation analysed by September. The Bill will be
discussed on Report at the other end of recess, so we will have an
opportunity to discuss this again. On that clear undertaking, for the
time being I invite the hon. Member for Forest of Dean to allow the
clause to stand part of the
Bill. 9.15
am
Mr.
Harper: That is helpful, and I am grateful for
confirmation of when the Solicitor-General expects the Bill to be
considered on Report. We will look at the Department for Transport
response to the consultation.
I note that private hire vehicle drivers and operators were asked to
respond to it. It will be interesting to see what they say, as well as
what taxi operators
say. Given
the Solicitor-Generals clear assurance, we will wait for the
consultation and then discuss on Report what should be
done. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
157, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
158 and 159 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 3 July 2009 |