UK Council on Deafness

October 2002 Parliamentary Report

The House of Lords has returned from the summer recess and the House of Commons will return on the 15th October.

Lords Hansard (11 Oct 2002)
Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs etc.) Bill

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The House and Parliament generally have a good record in combating discrimination against disabled people. Many people have undoubtedly been fascinated by the reference made in the previous debate by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to the way in which this legislation has come about and the many years of arduous work by the many people involved. Change, however, has been mired. Although much has been achieved, a very great deal still needs to be done. I hope that the House will support this very constructive Bill.

The Bill's object is to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to ensure that the owners of working dogs are not refused the use of minicabs. The DDA was against discrimination-and an excellent Act it was, but there are many loopholes. When Section 37, for example, came into force last year, it laid down a requirement for licensed taxi drivers to carry assistance dogs-often called guide dogs. However, by failing to cover private hire vehicles, or minicabs, it left open a wide field for discrimination against many disabled people. Yet, private hire vehicles are the main form of transport in many areas.

I pay tribute to Neil Gerrard MP, who skilfully piloted this Bill through the House of Commons. He made many persuasive speeches and won widespread support in the House. He worked closely with the RNIB and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. Both organisations were enthusiastic supporters of the Bill.

Fortunately, two-thirds of local authorities have laid down a requirement that private hire vehicles must carry a guide dog on request. Although this is of course helpful, it can be confusing. When people who need guide dogs are moving from one local authority area to another they cannot possibly know which areas have established the requirement and which have not. Many people could become stranded in a different area. Consequently, some disabled people are still at the mercy of private hire cab drivers who may use any one of the bogus excuses regularly offered. The arrangement is clearly unacceptable, but this Bill will eradicate this unfortunate anomaly. People naturally think of guide dogs for the blind in connection only with those with visual impairment. However, the Bill refers not only to guide dogs for the blind, for those with visual impairment, but to hearing dogs for the deaf and working dogs of all kinds. These helpful animals render a great service to disabled people. By supporting this Bill, the House can ensure that any impediments to their use are swept aside. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.-(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, this Bill too has my full support. The measure could not possibly have a more worthy promoter in this House than my good and noble friend Lord Ashley. As ever, he is fighting the good fight in a cause of high importance to severely disabled people. I pay tribute as well to Neil Gerrard on having used his good fortune in the private Member's ballot in another place to bring his Bill this far in the legislative process.

The Bill is not about special treatment; its purpose is simply to give disabled people the same opportunities to travel as everyone else. Private hire vehicles are an important part of the public transport system and it is entirely proper for the 6,000 or so disabled people who have assistance dogs to expect minicab companies to accept their bookings and for drivers to carry their dogs at no extra charge.

Welcome progress has been made recently-thanks to the work of Guide Dogs for the Blind-with many local authorities introducing licensing conditions that require minicabs to carry disabled people with assistance dogs at no extra cost. But until this Bill has been enacted, the current postcode lottery will persist and freedom to travel will continue to depend on where the blind person lives.

The Bill's importance is exemplified in a letter sent to me by a blind woman in Basingstoke where most minicab firms do not accept guide dogs. She queried this with the council and was told, correctly as the law stands, that they are legally entitled to refuse her access. Thus if she goes out anywhere that requires a cab home, her mother has to collect her. Her mother is elderly and chronically ill and could well do without this often stressful responsibility. Last week, reluctant to call on her mother, my correspondent had to wait three hours until past midnight for a cab which would take her home. She, like thousands of other assistance dog owners, simply wants the same freedom of movement that non-disabled people can take for granted. That is the fundamental issue this Bill addresses, but crucial to its effectiveness on the ground will be action to ensure full compliance with the new duties it imposes.

The Disability Rights Commission, which strongly supports the Bill, argues powerfully, in its review of the workings of the Disability Discrimination Act to date, that we must now move beyond reliance on enforcement by individuals to achieve full civil rights. We cannot simply leave it to individual disabled people to enforce their rights and must seek positive action on the part of service providers.

In that spirit the Department of Transport might usefully encourage local authorities to introduce a requirement that drivers and operators undergo disability awareness and equality training, as a condition of their licence, including training in the role of assistance dogs. I am delighted to have heard that this is indeed proposed by Transport for London in its current consultation on licensing of drivers in London.

I hope profoundly that this much needed measure will very soon become law without amendment and be fully enforced throughout the UK well within the next 12 months. Nothing less will do. Lord Carter: My Lords, this Bill has been through the other place and, if it is not held up in your Lordships' House, will become law. That will be welcome to all those who will be affected by it.

I declare an interest at the outset in that my daughter has had guide dogs for the past 16 years. I am therefore well aware of the problems that arise for owners of guide dogs. I understand that virtually all people who use assistance dogs-I believe that that is the proper term for the three groups: guide dogs for the blind, dogs for the deaf and dogs for the disabled-almost never have a problem with black cabs even to the extent of the driver assisting when the dog needs to go for a walk in the park, if your Lordships get my meaning. However, my daughter has had the experience of booking a minicab which drove away when the driver saw that she had a guide dog. Like all such dog owners she is familiar with the experience of being charged extra due to the cost of cleaning the vehicle to remove dog hairs-however, that never seems to be a problem with black cabs-and being required to sit in the front with the dog in the footwell which can be a real problem when a large dog is involved.

Owners always mention their guide dogs when ordering a cab but problems can still arise with minicabs. Maximum publicity should be given to how well trained assistance dogs are, that they are checked regularly by qualified vets and that their owners keep them well controlled at all times. Taxis, whether they be minicabs or black cabs, are an essential part of a blind person's life as although they are able to travel on public transport with their dog, they may well be travelling to an unfamiliar place or have to use a Tube station with nothing other than escalators, both of which situations can be stressful for the owner and dog. In such cases a taxi is the only answer.

I hope that I may be allowed to recount a true story with regard to escalators. I am sure that your Lordships know that assistance dogs cannot be taken on escalators due to the danger of harming the dogs' feet if anything goes wrong. Therefore, their owners either acquire expert knowledge of all the Tube stations with solid staircases or they have to find a member of staff to stop the escalator. On one occasion we could not find anyone to stop the escalator and we were in a hurry. I picked up the dog and went up the escalator with a large Labrador in my arms. I assure your Lordships that the faces of those on the down escalator were a picture. In some parts of the country, especially in the more rural areas, taxis are the only form of transport as public transport is either non-existent or infrequent and unreliable. Such areas would be caught by the terms of the Bill. All private hire vehicles in those areas would be affected by it. In rural areas a taxi is the only answer. To be refused or made to wait a longer amount of time just because one is travelling with an assistance dog is both annoying and discriminatory.

For all the reasons I have mentioned it is imperative that assistance animals including guide dogs, dogs for the deaf and dogs for the disabled are catered for and welcomed at all times in whatever mode of transport is available. In conclusion, I say to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester that there is no need to amend the Bill. If it is not amended, it will certainly become law. That would be extremely welcome to all owners of assistance dogs.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, on introducing the Bill as it deals with a practical problem in a succinct way.

I shall concentrate my remarks on blind people although the Bill covers people with other disabilities. Blind people have tremendous problems accessing buses. They cannot see them coming and do not know whether they have arrived. However, a minicab which they can order by telephone and which comes to their door, collects them and takes them specifically where they want to go as opposed to transport that must be hailed on the street is the answer to many of these people's problems. If a blind person needs a dog to guide him or her, the dog must be allowed to travel in a minicab. That is what we are talking about here. If the chain is broken, a blind person can find himself or herself stranded. When we discussed transport and disability previously we came to the conclusion that it did not matter how brilliant the chain was if a link was broken. For example, if a blind person has no way of navigating the 300 yards that lie between the train station and his destination, the ease of access to the train is immaterial.

The Bill addresses a real problem. We can only salute all those local authorities which have placed a duty on licensed minicab drivers to address this issue. However, there will always be a certain part of the country where the local authority does not consider such action necessary or has not got around to it. Consequently, there is a black hole for disabled people as regards their right to travel around the country.

It is essential that this Bill-which is modest in terms of its size and aims-is enacted. I congratulate those who took it through the Commons and I again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, on introducing it. I hope that we shall give it a fair hearing. It is pleasant to be in the second line-up of the usual suspects. One hopes that one day we shall have passed all the disability legislation that is required so that we do not have to meet quite so frequently. Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am also happy to be counted as one of the usual suspects. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, on bringing forward the Bill and on explaining so clearly and in such detail its objectives. As always, the noble Lord is very persuasive. We on these Benches support the Bill as an opportunity to address the clear shortfall in the 2001 legislation which obliged taxis but not minicabs to accept guide dogs. That omission is a great inconvenience to disabled people who generally rely more than able-bodied people on accessible taxi services. The current situation is doubly confusing because, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, 312 of the 374 local licensing authorities outside London and Northern Ireland that are empowered to oblige minicabs to take guide dogs have not done so.

The Bill will provide those with guide dogs with greater mobility by bringing about national consistency. A disabled person needing to travel by minicab should be able to do so unfettered and not be charged extra.

The Bill will increase the quality of life of disabled people: the deaf-the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and I have a particular interest in the deaf-and the blind or visually impaired. We on these Benches wish it well in its passage through the House.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am one of the usual suspects but, whether I am or not, I am very happy to respond on behalf of the Government to this debate and to emphasise our commitment to civil rights for disabled people, of which access to transport is an absolutely key element.

Having said that, access to private hire vehicles-to minicabs-is a key element of access to transport. As noble Lords made clear in their excellent speeches, for many people with disabilities, public transport is simply not available-depending on the degree of disability-for reasons that are insuperable. Private hire vehicles are therefore far more important to people with disabilities than to others. That is not simply my own assertion; we know it to be the case. The Department for Transport commissioned a MORI report through the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. It found that 40 per cent of people with disabilities use taxis or minicabs at least once a month, and that 53 per cent of people with visual impairment do so. It is clearly absolutely essential that this gap in the provision should be filled.

As was made clear in our debate, we have made considerable progress in terms of public transport. Under Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act we have made universal provision throughout the country for licensed taxis. However, that Act does not cover private hire vehicles. The licensing regime for those vehicles is different and more complicated because it depends to a considerable degree on local initiatives. It is therefore necessary for there to be primary legislation to ensure that the coverage of anti-discrimination legislation is nationwide. I pay tribute to the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the RNIB, whose activities led to the spread of local initiatives and to local licensing authorities imposing suitable conditions on private hire vehicles. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, rightly said, that is by no means universal. That is why we are here today. Clearly, the same provisions must relate to exemptions as those that apply to licensed taxis; likewise, the same precautions must apply. The Bill therefore provides for exemptions on medical grounds, as it does for taxis. We must recognise the position of those drivers who would be deprived of their livelihood for medical reasons if they had to carry dogs but were allergic to them. Again, the legal provisions relating to licensed taxis will apply in this regard. An argument against exemption would be if there was a fixed partition between the driver and the passenger and therefore the dog. There also has to be an appeal mechanism, which is provided for in the Bill.

My noble friend Lord Morris referred to training for private hire vehicle operators and drivers. There are no powers to require training in disability awareness for operators or drivers. The point could-and, I hope, will-be emphasised in the guidance that will be issued to stakeholders when the Bill is introduced.

In conclusion, the Government thoroughly support the Bill. We believe that it is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and we recognise that there will still be difficulties in terms of implementation, particularly in London, where the licensing regime has a long way to go. We are pleased that the Bill was amended in the Commons to cover Scotland and Northern Ireland as well. We now believe that it thoroughly deserves the support of this House.

We congratulate Neil Gerrard on taking the Bill through the House of Commons and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, on introducing it into this House and on the way in which he did so. In recognition of the universal approbation of the Bill this morning, we wish it Godspeed.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, in view of the response of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, this is a happy day for the many people who need to use private hire vehicles. I express my appreciation of the contributions of such experts as the noble Lords, Lord Morris, Lord Addington, Lord Carter and Lord Astor. They are familiar with the territory and their voices are important. I am especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for the clear and eloquent way in which he expressed the Government's support. He always wins my admiration for his apparent mastery of 1,000 different briefs; today was no exception. I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Commons Written Answers (15 Oct 2002)
Deafness

Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make it the policy of his Department to ensure that every deaf person who needs assistance with completing a disability living allowance or attendance allowance claim form and who cannot access the telephone form completion service is entitled to a home visit instead.

Maria Eagle: The Disability and Carer's Service policy, in accordance with the Disability Discrimination Act (1995), ensures accessibility of information for all disabled people. If a deaf person requires help to complete a benefit claim form for Disability Living Allowance or Attendance Allowance and cannot use the telephone forms completion service, which includes text phone facilities, we would arrange an interview with the appropriate interpreter present. The interview could take place at the nearest Social Security office but, if this presents difficulties for the customer, we could arrange for it to take place at home.

Commons Written Answers (15 Oct 2002)
Disability and Carers Service

Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

(1) if he will extend the one day impairment awareness courses for decisions makers in the Disability and Carers Service which cover mental health and learning disabilities to other impairments;

(2) If a course on deaf awareness will be developed for decisions makers in the Disability and Carers Service.

Maria Eagle: There is an on-going programme of training for all staff in the Disability and Carers Service, which includes a one-day module on Disability Awareness encompassing a range of disability issues, including deaf awareness, together with two specialist one-day modules for Decision Makers covering Mental Health and Learning Disability issues. There is a commitment to review the scope of the Programme with a view to extending the specialist modules for Decision Makers to other impairments in due course.

Commons Written Answers (15 Oct 2002)
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

Vera Baird: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department

(1) when special measures direction providing for vulnerable or intimidated adult witnesses to use TV link facilities, available under Section 21 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, will be available in all areas;

(2) when special measures direction providing for vulnerable or intimidated adult witnesses to give video recording of their evidence, available under Section 23 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, will be available in all areas;

(3) when special measures direction providing for the exclusion of the public from court whilst a vulnerable or intimidated witness gives evidence, available under Section 25 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, will be available in all areas;

(4) when special measures direction providing that wearing of wigs and gowns be dispensed with whilst a vulnerable or intimidated witness gives evidence, available under Section 26 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, will be available in all areas;

(5) when special measures direction providing for a video recording of an interview of a vulnerable or intimidated witness to be admitted as that person's evidence-in-chief, available under Section 27 of the Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, will be available in all areas;

(6) when special measures direction providing for cross examination of a vulnerable or intimidated witness to be video recorded and admitted as evidence, available under Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Act 1999, will be available in all areas;

(7) when special measures direction providing for examination of a vulnerable or intimidated witness to be conducted through an interpreter, available under Section 29 of the Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, will be available in all areas;

(8) when special measures direction providing for the witness to be provided with such a device as the court considers appropriate to enable questions or answers to be communicated to or by the witness despite any impairment which the witness has or suffers, available under Section 30 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, will be available in all areas.

Yvette Cooper: Sections 21, 23, 25, 26, 27 and 30 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 referred to in the questions came into force on 24 July 2002 in all areas of England and Wales. Sections 28 and 29 are not yet in force. The courts have facilities to deal with the new special measures. There are TV Links in all Crown Court centres and video recording equipment and interpreters are available. More equipment is to be fitted this financial year to cope with demand. There is no single device that will solve all issues resulting from hearing impairment, but each case is treated on its merits and arrangements made accordingly. This may include a hearing loop, voice amplification or a signer etc. Video link equipment will also be installed in 154 Magistrates Courts by September 2002. Vulnerable and intimidated witnesses facilities are already fitted in 133 Magistrates' Courts.

Commons Written Answers (21 Oct 2002)
Deafness

Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is on funding under the Access-to-Work Scheme to prelingually deaf people who need language support at work in connection with reading and writing English.

Maria Eagle: The Access to Work programme provides help for disabled people with additional costs in travelling to work, adaptations to workplaces, special equipment and funding for support workers. The budget has been increased every year since 1997, and 32,798 people benefited from the scheme in 2001-02 compared to just 10,000 in 1996-97. Help through Access to Work can include funding for English language support for prelingually deaf people to enable them to fulfil their responsibilities at work.

Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when information about disability living allowance will be made available in sign-language video format.

Malcolm Wicks: Information about Disability Living Allowance, along with the rest of the Department's benefit and pensions information, is currently being reviewed across the Department for Work and Pensions.

The review is driving the establishment of new corporate standards for the production of information in alternative formats. This includes the use of British Sign Language and the production of videos.

Standing Committee on the Convention
Wednesday 23 October 2002

[Mr. Frank Cook in the Chair]
The Future of Europe

The Chairman: Order. I remind the Committee that I am partially deaf, and that it would make things easier if Members spoke in my direction and with a slightly raised voice.

Lord Maclennan: I am more than happy to do so. Sharing that physical difficulty with you, Mr. Cook, I understand entirely what you say.

Lords Hansard (28 Oct 2002)

Disabled People: Equal Opportunities

Lord Addington asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they are satisfied with the current arrangements to ensure equal opportunities and civil rights for disabled people in policy-making and legislating throughout Whitehall.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have an excellent record in this area. We consult widely and take on board the views of disabled people. As major employers, government departments place the recruitment and retention of disabled people at the heart of equality and diversity policies. As a service provider, the Government aim to make services as accessible as possible. Disabled people and their representative organisations influence policy making and prospective legislation. They meet Ministers and officials frequently to ensure that their interests are at the centre of policy development.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. It is undeniable that things are better than they were, but that could have been said at any time during the past 10 or 15 years. In this parliamentary year, 681 Questions have been tabled. Another Bill on disability matters will be before your Lordships' House today. Much time has been taken up by a Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. Does that not suggest that, whatever we are doing in government, we are wasting vast amounts of parliamentary time but are not dealing with all the needs of the disabled? From his position in the Whips' Office, would the Minister like to suggest how much the need for parliamentary time would be eased by introducing a Bill or series of Bills over a Parliament that dealt with half of those problems?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am severely tempted to say that parliamentary time would be saved if more Members spoke briefly and to the point-on any given volume of legislation. Some measures can be enacted by secondary legislation under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Indeed, we plan to do so, as we announced last week. But some matters require primary legislation-for example, imposing a duty on the public sector to promote equality of opportunity or applying duties to public bodies, not just to services. Such things can be done only by primary legislation.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the problems of disability to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred are so vast and complex, covering many departments, that the Minister for Disabled People should be a senior Minister dealing solely with disability? Does he further agree that the best way to ensure equal opportunities and civic rights for disabled people is for the Government to undertake to implement all the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister for Disabled People, Maria Eagle, is extremely able and I do not think that her rank affects her work. The recommendations of the task force are widely respected in government and are taken seriously. For example, I note that the Disability Rights Commission welcomed the White Papers on equality and diversity published last week.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope my noble friend does not insist too often that we should be brief and to the point because that would make life very difficult for a number of us. Will my noble friend emphasise the particularly important point here; namely, the role of your Lordships' House, which, I should have thought, compared with any other legislative assemblies in the world, has a remarkably large number of people suffering from physical disabilities who make a point of contributing on this subject in a very constructive way? Is my noble friend aware that many noble Lords do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, of the failure to speak up for the disabled? Quite the contrary-this House does a remarkable job in making absolutely certain that nothing to do with the disabled is ever ignored in any piece of legislation that I have listened to in all my time here.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I share the experience of my noble friend Lord Peston. I agree with him that the quality of debate and decision making on matters affecting disabled people is very high in this House. That is, at least in part, because of the presence in the House of large numbers of people with disabilities. As to what that means for the future of the composition of the House, I leave that for the moment to Mr Cunningham and his colleagues.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, can my noble friend say what special arrangements are made to ensure that severely disabled people are fully and meaningfully consulted on policy making on equal opportunities and civil rights, bearing in mind their difficulties often in securing even equality of access to the consultative process? Let us reflect, for example, on the daunting difficulties of young people who are blind and pre-lingually deaf. Who could be more crucially affected by policy-making outcomes than them?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend's record in this area is evidence of the changes that the Government have made and the contribution that he has made to them. Our document Towards Inclusion, published in March last year, which was itself a response to the Disability Rights Task Force, is evidence of that; as is the existence of the Disability Rights Commission, the very active part it plays and the close co-operation it has with government.

Lord Addington: My Lords, the point I was trying to make is that many of us who speak on disabilities are getting fed up with doing so. I am calling for the Government to try to get this right by taking on some major legislation, so we do not have to keep coming back and asking these questions.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is an idealist. All these things move on at best in an asymptotic curve. One never gets to the position where one does not need any more legislation and everything has been got right. My experience of politics is not like that.

[back to top]

[back to Deafness in Parliament]

UK Council on Deafness, Registered Charity Number 1038448

Your use of this site is in accordance with our Privacy Statement

© UK Council on Deafness, 2003-5.