Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Viscount Simon: My Lords, my noble friend has introduced his amendment exceedingly well. I have only one further thing to add: I support it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving his amendment. We certainly agree with his main proposition that accessibility for disabled people is an important factor in taxi provision. That is why my honourable friend the Minister in another place has made clear our expectation that, within the next decade, vehicles will comply in those terms in prescribed areas. We say "in prescribed areas" because there is a difference between taxis used in urban areas and those used in rural ones.

I accept that we want disabled access but we may be prepared to tolerate different forms of that in different parts of the country. I fear that my noble friend is proposing that the black cab should be a universal model for taxis in all areas, which would have significant implications for the employment, use and provision of taxis in many parts of the country. Whole livelihoods would be destroyed if all taxis had to be black cabs. The technical specifications of the black cab are extremely significant, onerous and expensive. The noble Lord will know the cost of a black cab. A lot of taxis across the country provide an exceptional service to the many citizens who depend upon them but are run by people who could not invest in a black cab.

I shall give one obvious illustration: one specification of black cab design is that they should have the extraordinary and hugely admired limited turning circle. Drivers of ordinary vehicles are left in glorious envy of that feature when they see London taxis and other vehicles spin on the proverbial sixpence. But turning-circle specifications are not needed on cabs in other parts of the country. They are needed in some cities, which is why we see the so-called London cab in Manchester, Leeds and elsewhere, but a turning circle is of limited concern to users in many other places.

I understand that my noble friend seeks to ensure that the taxi trade serves citizens to the best of its ability. There is no doubt that we will insist on that. My honourable friend the Minister in the other place has indicated that he works to a timescale for compliance in that respect. But that is vastly different from an amendment that would produce a universal design concept. Although the black cab is the glory of
 
29 Nov 2005 : Column 170
 
London and greatly used in some of our other major cities, it is scarcely the basis for the design of taxis for hire across much of the United Kingdom.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his considered reply to this very short debate. It is too late at night, and too late in the Bill, for a lengthy debate about the role of the hackney cab in the United Kingdom. I am glad that he pays tribute to the status of the London cab, as it is much admired by cities elsewhere in the world. I was also reassured by my noble friend's remarks about provision for disabled passengers. I will read very carefully what he has said but I do not wish to press the amendment at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 62:


"REMOVAL OF VEHICLES BY POLICE CONTRACTED RECOVERY SCHEMES
In section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (removal of vehicles etc.), after subsection (2)(c) insert—
"(d) may, subject to paragraphs (e) and (f), provide for Police Contracted Recovery Schemes;
(e) any regulations for a scheme under subsection (2)(d) shall provide that—
(i) all appointed recovery operators are accredited to an International Standards Organisation standard;
(ii) a person whose vehicle falls within subsection (1) is, subject to sub-paragraph (iii) or (iv), given the opportunity to arrange removal himself;
(iii) sub-paragraph (ii) shall not apply if a constable believes safety or other road users would be compromised and the customer is unlikely to be able to arrange for the vehicle's removal before the appointed recovery operator;
(iv) sub-paragraph (ii) shall not apply if the road on which the vehicle is permitted to rest is a special road and the customer is unlikely to be able to arrange for the vehicle's removal within a time specified in the regulations or one hour, whichever is the greater;
(v) if a person whose vehicle falls within subsection (1) arranges removal of the vehicle himself and his choice of recovery operator arrives before the appointed recovery operator, he shall be under no obligation to the appointed recovery operator or the authority;
(vi) neither the authority, the chief police officer or the police authority may benefit from a preferential scale of charges or free services from an appointed recovery operator;
 
29 Nov 2005 : Column 171
 

(vii) when a vehicle has been abandoned by the owner or registered keeper the authority shall pay the appointed recovery operator the charges prescribed under section 102 of this Act;
(viii) an appointed recovery operator shall not be required to give any financial or other consideration for being appointed;
(ix) the police authority may make a financial charge, as prescribed, against the person whose vehicle falls within subsection (1), for despatching the appointed recovery operator, and such a charge may be collected by the appointed recovery operator;
(x) any Scheme must allow for competition, new operators joining the scheme, and aim to have operators no further than a prescribed distance from each other;
(xi) no person shall be appointed under a Police Contracted Recovery Scheme if he is not of good repute as defined in sub-paragraph (xii);
(xii) a person is of good repute if he meets similar requirements to paragraphs 1 to 6 of Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (c. 23);
(xiii) appointed recovery operators shall not charge more than the amount prescribed under section 102 for removing a vehicle weighing no more than 3500 kilograms unless approved by the chief officer of police on each occasion;
(xiv) appointed recovery operators shall not charge more than the amount prescribed under section 102 for removing a vehicle weighing more than 3500 kilograms unless there are unusual difficulties requiring extra facilities, but rates shall not exceed those published under sub-paragraph (xv); and
(xv) appointed recovery operators shall publish their scale of charges in such form as may be prescribed in one or more local papers;
(f) before making any regulations under subsection (2)(d) the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as he considers necessary and in particular the authorities empowered by regulations under section 99(1).""

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 62 concerns breakdown schemes operated by the police. Clearly, it is very important that roads are kept clear in the event of a breakdown and that the police will have to operate a scheme. Before much longer, on very high usage roads such as the M25, we will have to consider a free compulsory scheme to remove broken-down vehicles very quickly. As we all know, they cause serious problems. We are not there yet, but we will need a scheme which is along the lines of the schemes for roadworks.

Currently, there are serious problems, which I will describe in a moment. I am a little disappointed that I have to move this amendment. I suggested to the
 
29 Nov 2005 : Column 172
 
Minister that he might organise a meeting with a Home Office Minister and officials at some time in the future—not during the passage of the Bill—possibly in the new year. Unfortunately, he was unable to offer that. I suspect that my comments about the Home Office in respect of the amendment about causing death by careless driving were less than helpful.

Amendment No. 62 is on page 12 of the Marshalled List. It may be useful for your Lordships to glance at it because I intend to go through it. I propose a list of factors that need to be considered in a police scheme, but there are some difficulties. Sub-paragraph (i) of Amendment No. 62 provides that all operators should operate to an International Standards Organisation standard. Sub-paragraph (ii) reiterates the current situation; that is, when a motorist breaks down he has a choice of how his vehicle is recovered. Unfortunately, the police sometimes are economical with the truth and let the motorist think that he has no choice and that he has to use a police-appointed garage, which is not the case. Later, I shall describe some problems with the police-appointed garage. The amendment suggests that the motorist should be able to exercise his choice. However, sub-paragraph (iii) puts a time limit on that, stating that the motorist should not be able to compromise road safety, which is particularly important on a motorway where it is vital that vehicles are removed quickly. Sub-paragraph (iv) would set a time limit for how long a vehicle should be allowed to stay on a motorway. I suggest regulations but, in any case, the time limit should be no more than one hour.

The amendment also provides for what happens if the police appoint a recovery operator against the wishes of the customer, but the customer's garage gets there first. In that situation, it would be hard luck for the appointed garage. I do not understand why the police should be allowed to insist on using their appointed garage when the customer's choice of recovery firm arrives first.

Sub-paragraph (vi) is very important. At the moment, the police or police authority benefit from those schemes because they obtain free services on the back of the schemes. These services are not free. They are paid for by the motorist who breaks down. For example, the police will seek to obtain free storage of vehicles involved in crime and free recovery for their own vehicles. I hesitate to use the word "corrupt", but if the average motorist knew that police vehicles were recovered for free and that the ordinary travelling public must pay, he would be a bit disappointed, to say the least. The amendment also provides for the current system where abandoned vehicles can be removed by the police.

The amendment also provides that an appointed garage should not have to pay for the privilege of being on the police list. At the moment, it has to pay a considerable sum of money to be on the police rota when it wants to provide a service for the public. Perhaps the Minister will explain why that is desirable. My amendment also provides for when an appointed garage recovers a vehicle. The motorist has to pay for that recovery. It will not be free.
 
29 Nov 2005 : Column 173
 

Sub-paragraph (xi) makes it clear that the scheme must allow for new operators in the scheme. Sub-paragraph (xii) provides that a recovery operator must be of "good repute". Clearly, the recovery operator might deal with a vulnerable motorist who has broken down in the middle of the night. We do not want people of no good repute involved in the industry. Sub-paragraphs (xiii) and (xiv) allow for different rates for different sizes of vehicles. Obviously, it is much more expensive to recover a heavy commercial vehicle than a light vehicle. Under sub-paragraph (xv), when an operator wants to charge very high rates in order to recover the cost of extremely expensive equipment, it must advertise its rates in the local paper, which might make interesting reading if an operator wants to charge extortionate rates.

My greatest concern about current police schemes is that the police or police authority benefit from free recovery services. In addition, operators have to pay to be on the scheme. There have been a number of court cases involving police schemes. During the Police Reform Bill I tabled exactly the same amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in his customary way, accepted that there was a serious problem, but I am not convinced that we have made any progress. I was a little disappointed that the Minister was unable to arrange a meeting with me and officials at leisure; that is, at some time next year and not while the Bill is in progress in your Lordships' House. That is always difficult. This is an additional amendment which deals with some road safety as well as wider issues, and Home Office issues to boot. I will be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say on this important subject. I beg to move.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page