Source: BBC Online

Blind charities have welcomed the conviction of a taxi driver who refused to take a passenger with a guide dog. Nader Rohbani-Eivazi, 49, told Janice Powers he would not take her dog Wayne in his cab from an equality event in Cardiff Bay.

When she protested, he said: “Take me to court”. Rohbani-Eivazi was fined £200 with £215 costs by magistrates for breaking disability laws. RNIB Cymru hailed it as a landmark case for “respect and dignity”.

Ms Powers, 49, who is blind and has arthritis, had been at the launch of a diversity and equality initiative at the Welsh assembly buildings in Cardiff Bay with Wayne, her six-year-old Labrador retriever.

She was travelling with a visually-impaired colleague from Swansea and her twin sister, Nadine Brodrick, from Swansea, and her sighted guide Rose Casburn-Davies, 48, from Carmarthen.

The four tried to take the taxi to the railway station in time for the last train to Carmarthen, where Ms Powers lives. She said: “It was late and we were cold and wanted to get home, but when approached the lead hackney carriage for a lift the driver just said: “Four people but no dog.”

“We were flabbergasted, especially as he had disabled stickers on display. “But when we pointed out that he would be breaking the law if he refused to take my guide dog he just said: “Take me to court”. “He wouldn’t have it, we were all so upset, it was late and we were in danger of missing the 10pm train.”

The group found another driver to take them and Wayne and none missed their train.

Ms Powers contacted Cardiff council and the local authority took out an enforcement action against Rohbani-Eivazi, 49, from Penarth, Vale of Glamorgan, and provided a council solicitor for the case.

Cardiff, Vales and Valleys Institute for the Blind, RNIB Cymru and Guide Dogs for the Blind also supported the action. Cardiff magistrates found Rohbani-Eivazi guilty of breaking the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

RNIB Cymru director Sarah Rochira said: “I’m delighted that Janice won this case. “There are over 100,000 people in Wales with sight loss, many of whom struggle everyday to lead independent lives.

“We know that being able to get about independently is one of the most important things that people with sight loss want to be able to do. “We also know that there are many people who face problems such as those experienced by Janice.”

She added that the verdict sent “a clear message to people providing services - that they must treat people with respect and dignity.”

Following a Lords debate on the government’s flagship Equality Bill it has become clear that in restricted areas that don’t have a 100% WAV taxi fleet, an unlimited amount of new WAV plates will have to be issued on demand. The current law that allows councils to restrict will no-longer apply to applicants that produce a WAV for plating.

Amendments relating to PH WAV provision were withdrawn following government concern that it ‘would be incredibly burdensome to the private hire industry‘.

Lords taxi and PH WAV debate in full:

Amendment 120

Moved by Lord Hunt of Wirral

120: After Clause 159, insert the following new Clause-

“Private hire vehicle accessibility regulations

(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations (in this section referred to as “private hire vehicle accessibility regulations”) for securing that it is possible for disabled persons-

(a) to get into and out of private hire vehicles in safety;

(b) to do so while in wheelchairs;

(c) to travel in private hire vehicles in safety and reasonable comfort;

(d) to do so while in wheelchairs.

(2) The regulations may, in particular, require a regulated private hire vehicle to conform with provision as to-

(a) the size of a door opening for the use of passengers;

(b) the floor area of the passenger compartment;

(c) the amount of headroom in the passenger compartment;

(d) the fitting of restraining devices designed to ensure the stability of a wheelchair while the private hire vehicle is moving.

(3) The regulations may also-

(a) require the driver of a regulated private hire vehicle which is plying for hire, or which has been hired, to comply with provisions as to the carrying of ramps of other devices designed to facilitate the loading and unloading of wheelchairs;

(b) require the driver of a regulated private hire vehicle in which a disabled person is being carried while in a wheelchair to comply with provisions as to the position in which the wheelchair is to be secured.

(4) The driver of a regulated private hire vehicle which is plying for hire or has been hired commits an offence-

(a) by failing to comply with a requirement of the regulations, or

(b) if the private hire vehicle fails to conform with any provision of the regulations with which it is required to conform.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(6) In this section-

“passenger compartment” has such meaning as is specified in private hire vehicle accessibility regulations;

“regulated private hire vehicle” means a private hire vehicle to which private hire accessibility regulations are expressed to apply.”

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, we tabled Amendment 120 because we wanted to raise the issue of accessibility of private hire vehicles for people with disability. The intention is to probe this area and discover what changes could be made, what changes should be made and what changes the Government hope to make to ensure that private hire vehicles are accessible to people with disability.

We therefore tabled an amendment to come after Clause 159. This contains the order-making power which would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that disabled people could get into and out of private hire vehicles in safety, get into and out of private hire vehicles in wheelchairs and travel in private hire vehicles in safety and comfort. These reasonably far-reaching regulations could also specify the size of door openings for passengers, the floor area and the amount of headroom in the passenger compartment and the fitting of restraining devices to prevent a wheelchair from moving while the vehicle was in motion.

Will the Minister let us know whether any research has been carried out to show how many private hire vehicles are currently accessible for people with disability? Is she able to provide any figures which would demonstrate the disadvantage currently experienced by people with disability, thereby pointing to the need for regulation-making powers? We on these Benches are concerned to ensure that, where necessary, changes are made.

Throughout the passage of this Bill, we have tried to underline the point that, where it is necessary to ensure equality, people with disability can be treated in a more favourable way than people who are not disabled. We are pleased to see the Government’s letter of 26 January, which stated that they were “minded” to accept Amendment 120A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. This amendment would seek to ensure in a new clause that suitable numbers of wheelchair-accessible taxis operate throughout England and Wales.

We welcome the intention of this clause, but I ask for clarification on a couple of points. The amendments appear to give further powers to the Secretary of State, thus removing them from the local authorities. Can the noble Baroness explain why this is necessary if the local authorities will already be subject to the public sector equality duty? Is this a symptom of the vague, and so far undefined, nature of the duty, making it necessary to give powers to the Secretary of State, or is it an indication that the Government already doubt the way this duty will work?

I hope that in her response the noble Baroness will also indicate what consultation and discussion have taken place with the Local Government Association and taxi organisations about this matter, and what views were expressed. I also wonder whether she might be able to address some more specific questions to do with the capability of a vehicle to accommodate a wheelchair. We have been informed that no wheelchair is crash-tested for a situation where it is rear-facing. Despite this, most private hire vehicles can accommodate only rear-facing wheelchairs.

Is the noble Baroness aware that this is the case, and does she agree that it seems unsuitable and that perhaps changes need to be made? We are also informed that no council arranging school transport carries out checks to see whether wheelchairs are crash-tested and certified. Can the noble Baroness inform the Committee whether such checks or similar are required to be carried out, and does she not think that there is a case for calling for such safety measures? I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 120A in my name, which concerns the lack of accessible taxis available to disabled passengers. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The proposed new clause would mean that taxi-licensing authorities which have a policy of controlling taxi numbers could not refuse to grant a taxi licence for a wheelchair-accessible vehicle if fewer than a prescribed proportion of taxis in the district were wheelchair-accessible. At present, a taxi-licensing authority outside London can refuse to grant a licence if it is satisfied that there is no significant unmet need for taxi services in the district. As a result, a licensing authority with a quantity-control policy and relatively few or no accessible taxis in its fleet can refuse applications for wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Noble Lords can imagine what that means for a wheelchair user who needs a taxi when, for instance, they arrive in the area by train. They are stranded. One must also think what it means for those living in the area when they need to get to an urgent appointment or visit friends and have a social life.

The new clause would mean that a licensing authority could not refuse to grant a licence for any wheelchair-accessible vehicle if it had fewer than a prescribed proportion of accessible taxis in the district. The proportion of accessible taxis would be prescribed by the Secretary of State following economic assessment and consultation. The provision of accessible transport is essential for equality of opportunity. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I welcome the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and in particular the proposed new clause spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. Her last point, that accessibility to transport is crucial for equality of opportunity, sums it up. We on these Benches are happy to support her amendment.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I speak briefly to support the amendment, not least because, on Sunday evening, a disabled friend came to visit. A licensed taxi came to pick him up and could not take him, so there was a delay of more than an hour while we waited for a suitable taxi. Clearly this is an important area and we need to know more about it.

The Archbishop of York: My Lords, when the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, moved her amendment last time on the question of need, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool spoke out clearly in the debate. In the General Synod of the Church of England, we received a report from a number of disabled people, and access was one of the greatest areas of concern. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, would address that concern, and I support it, because it strikes the right balance. Access is absolutely critical.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I will speak to government Amendments 121, 122 and 123, before turning to Amendment 120A and finally to Amendment 120, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

Amendments 121, 122 and 123 relate to the ability of taxi-licensing authorities to maintain lists of wheelchair-accessible taxis and private hire vehicles that operate in their area. Drivers of such designated vehicles are required to perform the duties in Clause 163 to carry and assist disabled passengers who use wheelchairs. Clause 165 enables Scottish licensing authorities to maintain lists only of wheelchair-accessible taxis and private hire vehicles that hold a special licence to operate a local bus service. They will be unable to list wheelchair-accessible taxis and private hire vehicles that operate under conventional licences. This would mean that the drivers of vehicles with a conventional licence would not be obliged to carry out the duties in Clause 163, even though their vehicle was capable of carrying disabled passengers who use wheelchairs.

The amendments will align the position in Scotland to that in England and Wales. This will give greater assurance to disabled people that, when they require a wheelchair-accessible taxi or private hire vehicle, the driver will assist them to enter and exit the vehicle and, if they decide to remain in the wheelchair while travelling in the vehicle, will ensure that the wheelchair is secure and safe and that they travel in reasonable comfort.

Amendment 120A is in the name of my noble friend Lady Wilkins. Taxi licensing and provision is a complicated area, and steps to improve access to taxis for disabled people are always welcome. It is unacceptable that a licensing authority which controls taxi numbers can routinely refuse applications for wheelchair-accessible taxis when it has very few wheelchair-accessible taxis in the district or, indeed, none at all. This new clause provides an ideal means of enhancing accessible taxi provision in these areas.

I thank my noble friend Lady Wilkins for her amendment, which is compatible with the aims of the Bill and has the effect of improving accessibility for disabled people. In making any regulations under this clause, the Government would, of course, consult interested parties before reaching a decision on the proportion of taxis which must be wheelchair accessible and on the specifications of the wheelchair which taxis must be capable of accommodating. Therefore, the Government will accept Amendment 120A.

I now turn to Amendment 120 and the legitimate points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I have already mentioned the issues of safety and the appropriate provision to be provided in taxis and licensed vehicles. The noble Lord raised a very reasonable point about safety and taxis. This is not in my notes but it should be. I have already mentioned that checks on safety are included and would be included in the regulations that arise out of my noble friend’s point. I will undertake to ensure that the issue is properly addressed in the regulations and guidance which arise out of these provisions. I shall also write to the noble Lord and the Committee on this matter. From the wisdom that is offered to me from time to time, I can say that vehicles used for taxis are tested in accordance with European safety regulations and those requirements include crash testing. They must also be designed to accommodate wheelchairs safely in rear-facing orientation. We have taken that on board.

The noble Lord’s amendment is a probing amendment on this subject, and its principal objective would be to require all private hire vehicles to be wheelchair accessible. That would be incredibly burdensome to the private hire industry. Looking at the range of private hire vehicles which are available, we need information to be available to disabled people about what is in their area so that we can move forward in an orderly fashion. To say that all private hire vehicles have to provide for wheelchair access may be a step too far. However, the private hire vehicle trade is fundamentally different from the taxi trade: taxis can ply for hire, stand in ranks and be hailed in the street, whereas private hire vehicles must be booked in advance through a licensed operator.

I should point out that, as the amendment is drafted, it could be seen to be technically defective as it refers to private hire vehicles plying for hire and of course the noble Lord will be aware that that is illegal. We think that converting or replacing all private hire vehicles would be so costly to the trade that it would no doubt force many operators out of business. Given the important role that private hire vehicles play in providing public transport, I am sure the noble Lord would not want to go in that direction.

However, there is scope for using legislation to enhance the service which disabled people receive from private hire vehicles. In addition to the general duty not to discriminate, drivers of private hire vehicles designated as wheelchair-accessible vehicles will, under Clause 163, be required to assist their wheelchair passengers. I hope that explains why we do not agree with Amendment 120 and why we would like to accept Amendment 120A.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: First, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I hasten to reassure her that it was, as I pointed out, only a probing amendment. We are well aware of the importance of the private hire vehicle industry, which plays a critical part in making the necessary provision available. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins.

I too am very pleased indeed that the Government are minded to accept Amendment 120A. So far as the other comments of the noble Baroness are concerned,

I think that was a very helpful outline. I warmly welcome her undertaking and in all the circumstances beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 120 withdrawn.

Amendment 120A

120A: After Clause 159, insert the following new Clause-

“Control of numbers of licensed taxis: exception

(3) In section 16 of the Transport Act 1985, after “shall” insert “(subject to section (Control of numbers of licensed taxis: exception) of the Equality Act 2010)”.”

Amendment 120A agreed.

Clauses 188 and 189 agreed.

Source: Telegraph

Taxi drivers applying for their Hackney Carriage licence are being offered the forms in Braille by a council. A notice at the end reads: “You can get this Portsmouth City Council information in large print, Braille, audio or in another language….”

The council, a member of the Plain English Campaign, defended the forms. Head of customer services Louise Wilders said: “Obviously, a taxi driver would not need the Braille version, but they might find a foreign language version helpful.

“The form is also for employers to fill in - they could need a Braille version.”

The Braille system is a method that is widely used by blind people to read and write. Braille was devised in 1821 by Louis Braille, a blind Frenchman. Each Braille character or cell is made up of six dot positions, arranged in a rectangle containing two columns of three dots each.

A late amendment to the 2010 Equality Bill was added by Baroness Wilkins on Tuesday 19th January 2010. This amendment, if enacted, could end the discretion that local licensing authorities have in restricting the number of hackney carriages they license.

Insert the following new Clause—

(3) In section 16 of the Transport Act 1985, after “shall” insert “(subject to section (Control of numbers of licensed taxis: exception) of the Equality Act 2010)”.”

Source: Argus

A taxi driver refused to take a blind man and his guide dog to the Labour Party conference in Brighton because he is afraid of dogs.

What he did not know was that John Dickinson-Lilley is a parliamentary officer for the Royal National Institute for the Blind Mr Dickinson-Lilley was at the conference to lobby ministers and MPs for improved rights for the blind and partially sighted.

He arrived at Brighton station on the first day of the conference at the Brighton Centre on September 27. Station staff showed him and his black Labrador guide dog Jimmy to the taxi rank where he queued with MPs and a Secretary of State.

But Mohammad Babak refused to let them into the Brighton and Hove Streamline taxi he was driving. Mr Dickinson-Lilley, from Norwich, said: “The driver said ‘no, no dogs’. “I explained that he was a guide dog – Jimmy was in his harness – and that he was obliged to carry me and the dog. “The driver said he did not carry dogs, including guide dogs and that the cab was not his anyway.”

Station staff also appealed to Babak but their pleas fell on deaf ears. Mr Dickinson-Lilley said: “I felt completely humiliated and embarrassed. “I am a Parliamentary Officer and had been embarrassed infront of senior MPs who I might have to work with.”

Babak, 25, of Carden Hill, Brighton, admitted failing to comply with his duty to carry Mr Dickinson-Lilley and Jimmy when he appeared at Brighton Magistrates’ Court yesterday.

Lucinda Dore, defending, said Babak had medical evidence to back his claims that he is allergic to dogs and is frightened of them. She added: “That apart he wants to apologise for the distress that this caused to the victim of this offence.”

Source: Liverpool Echo

PLANS to license a new wheelchair friendlier taxi in Liverpool have stalled at the council’s licensing committee meeting.

Liverpool City Council had been told by the High Court in London to perform a U-turn on its decision to ban the Peugeot E7 cab, which is in use in the majority of other cities across the UK.

The ruling appeared to finally bring to an end a two-year battle that disabled campaigners said had been a huge waste of time, costing city residents an estimated six-figure sum.

But just as councillors were ready to approve the application from Glasgow-based Allied Vehicles, solicitors acting for London Taxi International, who currently enjoy a monopoly in the city, claimed the committee’s new report was seriously flawed – and that it would be unlawful to license the vehicle.

A council spokesman said: “In view of the letter, The committee had no choice but to adjourn the matter in order to take legal advice. However, the council wants to make a decision on this as soon as possible.”

John Bruce, secretary of Liverpool Wheelchair Users Group, said: “This really is most disappointing. I just can’t believe what is going on.” We have a High Court judge instructing the council to re-think its decision to ban the cab, which it has. But now the other taxi company operating in the city is saying it would be illegal!”

In July, Mr Justice Blake, at the High Court, said that in not approving the E7 cab the council had been guilty of discrimination.

The judge found the council’s ban on the new E7 taxis amounted to a failure to “make reasonable adjustments” for wheelchair users.

Bruce added: “It shouldn’t have needed to go to court. The judge basically wiped the floor with Liverpool council’s attempts at expensively defending the indefensible.

“We hope investigations will be made and questions asked as to who decided what, and when, and why? What were the officers, councillors and advisers thinking they were actually defending?

“Around 95% of the cities and towns of the UK were already safely using the E7 cab.”

It was the first time the Disability Discrimination Act’s prohibition against bias in the exercise of public functions had been tested in court.