Clause
160Lists
of wheelchair-accessible
vehicles Amendments
made: 287, in clause 160, page 118, line 32,
after ‘authority’ insert ‘in England and
Wales’. This amendment
is consequent on amendment
288. Amendment
288, in
clause 160, page 118, line 35, leave
out ‘In this subsection’ and
insert— ‘(3A) A licensing
authority in Scotland may include a vehicle on a list maintained under
this section only if it is being used, or is to be used, by the holder
of a special licence under that
licence. (3B) In subsections
(3) and (3A)’.—(The
Solicitor-General.) The
effect of this amendment is to restrict the application of clauses 158
to 160, as regards Scotland, to vehicles used under special licences
within the meaning of section 12 of the Transport Act 1985: that is,
“taxibuses” and
“PHV-buses”. Clause
160, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
161 to 164 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
165Appeals Amendments
made: 289, in clause 165, page 121, line 19,
after ‘authority’ insert ‘in England and
Wales’. The purpose of
this amendment, together with amendments 290 and 291,
is to make separate provision regarding appeals in
Scotland. Amendment
290, in
clause 165, page 121, line 21, leave
out ‘or, in Scotland, the
sheriff’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
289. Amendment
291, in
clause 165, page 121, line 22, at
end insert— ‘(1A) A person
who is aggrieved by the refusal of a licensing authority in Scotland to
issue an exemption certificate under section 159 may appeal to the
sheriff before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date
of the
refusal.’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
289. Amendment
292, in
clause 165, page 121, line 23, after
‘subsection (1)’ insert ‘or
(1A)’.—(The
Solicitor-General.) This
amendment is consequent on amendment
291. Clause
165, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
166Interpretation Amendment
made: 293, in clause 166, page 122, line 16,
leave out ‘except in sections 161 to 164’ and
insert ‘in sections 155 and 158 to
160’.—(The
Solicitor-General.) This
amendment prevents clauses 154 and 156 from applying as regards taxis
in Scotland; in relation to clause 157, the amendment is consequent on
amendment
286. Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Boswell: I think that it would bore the Committee to tears
to go into the detail of an interpretation clause. However, I would
like the Solicitor-General’s assurance that the list of
categories of assistance dog is sufficiently comprehensive. It begins
with specific types and goes on to mention prescribed charities. I
think that that will cover all
types. I
have a constituency interest because a marvellous charity called Dogs
for the Disabled, which does excellent work, is located at the edge of
my constituency, near to Banbury in the neighbouring constituency. That
charity provides dogs for people with wider disabilities than the
conventional disabilities of deafness or blindness. Will the
Solicitor-General assure me that she will nudge her colleagues in the
relevant Department to ensure that the definition is sufficiently
comprehensive, as I believe it is, so that any dog that is trained to
help a person will be
admitted?
The
Solicitor-General: The category of assistance dog is
widening all the time. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an
important point, but the clause allows the Secretary of State to
provide for further categories of assistance dog as it becomes
necessary. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
166, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
167 to 174 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
175Rail
vehicle accessibility
regulations
The
Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment 87, in
clause 175, page 127, line 38, leave
out ‘194(3)(a)’ and insert
‘194(4)(a)’. This
amendment would correct a cross-reference. The correct reference is to
the power of the Secretary of State to make different provision in
regulations for different purposes. The incorrect reference relates to
sex discrimination in
schools. This
is to change 194(3)(a) to 194(4)(a), which, I am afraid, was a drafting
error.
Amendment
87 agreed
to. Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Harper: This, I hope, will not take too long. Again, it
relates to our friends in the Department for Transport. Given what the
Solicitor-General said about timing, the issue may well fall within
that category as well. In April, the Department for Transport issued a
consultation on rail services for disabled people under the Disability
Discrimination Act 1995. Specifically, the consultation is about
improving the accessibility of light rail vehicles—those used on
metro, underground and tram systems and other prescribed modes of
guided
transport. I
ask about the matter again to see how it interacts with what is being
proposed in the regulations under the clause. The Government are
carrying out their consultation. There are European standards on heavy
rail vehicles—what we commonly call trains—and the
appropriate stations. To ensure that the new regulations do not impose
a double regulatory burden, the Government are consulting
on light rail vehicles and are also considering two draft regulations. I
am sure that the Solicitor-General is not terribly familiar with them,
because they are a bit convoluted. The Rail Vehicle Accessibility
(Non-Interoperable Rail System) Regulations 2009 is not the most catchy
and snappy of
titles. The
regulations are quite technical. Ministers occasionally bring out rail
vehicle accessibility regulations, both general and specific, and,
anorak that I am, I faithfully get them from the Vote Office and read
them to ensure that they are in order. Although they always have been,
it is worth checking such things.
I want to
check that the provisions that the Government mention here, which are
to continue to have the right technical specifications in place but to
have a less onerous regulatory system, are to be introduced on or
before 31 December. Will the Solicitor-General update the
Committee on how the consultation is proceeding? Moreover, will she
tell us whether the proposed changes are purely regulatory and whether
the way the DDA has been transferred into the Bill will have any impact
on them? Will anything need to be done on Report or can these
regulations be added to the existing powers and then transferred across
into the Bill?
Mr.
Boswell: Briefly, and rather in the spirit of my earlier
intervention, I would like the Solicitor-General to have a word with
her hon. Friends about the implications in practice. This is about rail
accessibility, which will vary depending on whether the train is
travelling or coming to rest at a
station. Let
me sketch out a particular dilemma. As we improve the provision for
disabled people on rail, which we should, there is bound to be pressure
on space for fully abled passengers. It requires a sensitive design to
make the spaces as flexible as possible to accommodate the needs of
disabled persons with wheelchairs or for other passengers if that is
appropriate. One
of the by-products of that is that if capacity is cut in the carriage
by making provision for wheelchair access, another carriage might be
needed in order to carry the same number of passengers or to meet the
same demand. I promise that I will not go into a debate about the
economics of the rail system, because that would take us into very
unsatisfactory territory. Another carriage would be fine, although not
without
cost. A
concomitant effect at very small stations—I have two in my
constituency—with short platforms is that if the configuration
increases from six cars to seven, some may overshoot the platform. That
may not be a problem for people who are fully abled and agile, but it
would be more of a difficulty for wheelchair users or those who are not
nimble in getting off trains, such as older people, because they may
find themselves in the wrong place on the train. I suspect that many of
us have had that experience on a crowded tube train—one suddenly
finds that the door at the end of the carriage will not open and one
has quickly to shimmy down to the next door, which is not always
easy. All
I am suggesting—I am not proposing that this should be tied down
in law—is that merely saying that carriages should be wheelchair
accessible is not quite the same as saying that wheelchair users should
be able to access the whole length of the train for safe egress and
ingress to the platform. A little conversation, at
least, with the Solicitor-General’s sister Department might be
useful, because it is important in the general framework of what I know
is intended to be an enabling and encouraging clause to get it as
practically right as
possible. For
example, when the accessibility issue is being cleared in relation to
new rolling stock and if there are limited-access stations, which are
better than closed stations—we had the same dilemma about
hackney cab services—it may be sensible if they have to produce
an operational plan to ensure that wheelchair users are notified, put
in a suitable part of the train, escorted, provided with more time or
whatever is appropriate. Those are largely operational matters for the
Solicitor-General’s sister Department, and I leave those
thoughts with
her.
The
Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is right: it is hard
to legislate for the practical problems he foresees. In the example he
sketched out, I suppose that the train would have to move up a little.
We hope that in the longer term the legislation will change attitudes
and make people more aware of the need always to think about the
possibility of disabled people being present. He makes a valid point,
as ever. He is a devoted supporter of disabled people and I praise him,
not for the first time, for that
commitment. The
clause deals with the fairly technical rail vehicle accessibility
regulations, and I am not such an anorak as the hon. Member for Forest
of Dean that I check whether they are in order, so I must take that on
trust. We are consulting, as he said, and that consultation closes on
Friday, so if the hon. Member for Daventry or anyone else wants to add
anything, time is short.
The clause
replicates in the Bill the provisions of section 46 of the DDA, and any
new regulations that emerge from the consultation will be enacted under
this provision. We do not believe that anything more will be needed on
Report. Having probed the issue, and with the assurance that a couple
of days remain to contribute to the consultation, I hope that the hon.
Member for Forest of Dean is content to allow the clause to stand part
of the
Bill. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
175, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
176Exemptions
from rail vehicle accessibility
regulations Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. 9.30
am
Mr.
Harper: I have a brief question arising from our previous
debate. If the Secretary of State is asked to make provision for an
exemption order, after consulting the Disabled Persons Transport
Advisory Committee and any other person whom he thinks appropriate, he
has the options of making an exemption order, refusing to do so, or
doing so with specific conditions and restrictions. In the past, would
those conditions have
included the sort of communication that the operator had to undertake to
make people aware of particular rail networks or trains that were not
accessible? A
criticism that is often raised with me by constituents is that they are
not only annoyed when a particular rail network is not accessible; they
are most annoyed when they do not know that it is accessible or they
think, or are led to believe, that it is accessible. In such
circumstances they may be surprised and may end up with a lot of
problems once they are on the train, including finding that they have
to go to another station that they did not expect to go to. If the
Secretary of State is to make exemption orders and rail vehicles are
not accessible, one useful condition could be included relating to what
the operator has to do in terms of proper communication, so that
disabled people using that service are aware not just that it is not
accessible, but what other options are available that they might use to
maximise their
mobility.
Mr.
Boswell: My hon. Friend’s comments on the clause
have helped to satisfy me in relation to my previous point. It is
terribly clear that we should not simply stamp that provision on the
physical spec of the rolling stock; we should look at how the process
will work in practice. We are establishing some understanding about
that and, I hope, encouraging the Minister’s departmental
colleagues. I
should like to return to a point that was in my mind when we were
talking earlier about Hackney carriages: the basis on which orders can
be made on exemptions or derogations from regulations. I remember, as a
Minister, facing the dilemma of the extent to which a Secretary of
State would specify the grounds for their decision to confirm, modify
or refuse an exemption order. I suspect that disabled people and their
organisations would want to build up a corpus of views about whether
that was done reasonably and not simply as an economic cop-out. It
would be interesting to know whether there will be something beyond the
bald rubric that the Minister has decided on, so that people could
begin to understand the rationale for a growing—one hopes it is
not too fast growing—corpus of decisions for
exemptions.
| 
