| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Oldham: When I saw that there was to be a Clause 8 stand part debate, I had not lighted upon this section as prompting it. The noble Lord has me very much on the defensive. Apparently, we must guard against the case of someone carrying out an impersonation. We can think of two categories—first, someone seeking to cause trouble for the organisation concerned. Because people in all walks of life are terrified of inspectors, no one ever checks their credentials and there is anxiety in that respect. Secondly, there is the danger posed by someone who ends his term of office as an inspector against his will and carries on the practice for a short time for his own amusement and the discomfort of others.
The noble Lord may think that I am being somewhat far-fetched and as I sit here I feel somewhat far-fetched with these illustrations. However, I have no better, as he has caught me on the hop with his questions. Suffice it to say, we believe that we need to guard against the impersonation of inspectors, which is why the provision appears in the Bill.
Lord Tebbit: Would the noble Lord give way?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I give way with trepidation.
Lord Tebbit: Would not that not fall under the general umbrella offence of committing a public nuisance? I would have thought that it might well do. As this legislation gets more and more complicated, it worries me.
Lord Carter: I can help my noble friend. I think that there used to be a programme on television called "The Wheeltappers' Ball". Perhaps this is the wheeltappers' ball clause.
Lord Davies of Oldham: If anyone is asking me to challenge the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, on the definition of a public nuisance, all I can say is that I do not have a 25-year record to fall back on in those terms. However, I hear what he says. The clause is in the Bill because of the obvious dangers if such impersonation is carried out. It mirrors the provision in other Acts with regard to transport inspectors. There is just cause for anxiety on the matter.
Lord Higgins: The trouble with questioning something that seems slightly fatuous such as the clause is that everything becomes laughable. However, we ought not to have provisions that are not really justified. Has there been any such case, even in the wider scope that the Minister just mentioned, of someone being prosecuted? Without being unduly
17 Jan 2005 : Column GC146
facetious, if there is a former inspector who is going on inspecting—presumably unpaid—that seems highly desirable; it saves public funds.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: Slightly more seriously—
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: Absolutely. Would the Minister accept that there is a fairly general view in the Committee that the clause might rather over-egg the pudding, and so think about it again?
Lord Davies of Oldham: Yes, I accept that. I do not have an answer to the noble Lord's question at present. On the whole, I tend to think that if there is a precursor to such a measure in other Acts, there is reason for it. However, I do not have a direct answer for him. We will look one up and make sure that we have satisfactory answers at the next stage of the Bill's progress.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay moved Amendment No. 49:
"BUS ACCESSIBILITY REGULATIONS
In the 1995 Act, after section 47 (exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations) there is inserted—
47A BUS ACCESSIBILITY REGULATIONS
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of securing that it is possible—
(a) for disabled persons—
(i) to get on to and off regulated bus vehicles in safety and without unreasonable difficulty;
(ii) to be carried in such vehicles in safety and in reasonable comfort; and
(b) for disabled persons in wheelchairs—
(i) to get on to and off such vehicles in safety and without unreasonable difficulty while remaining in their wheelchairs, and
(ii) to be carried in such vehicles in safety and in reasonable comfort while remaining in their wheelchairs.
(2) Regulations may in particular create an offence of parking a motor vehicle at a bus stop contrary to the purposes set out in subsection (1).
(3) A person found guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale and up to 3 penalty points on their driving licence.""
The noble Lord said: The amendment's purpose is a simple one—to provide a real deterrent to prevent drivers parking their cars at bus stops, thereby making access for disabled people to buses difficult. We do not believe that the Bill and the arrangements as they stand are in practice effective.
17 Jan 2005 : Column GC147
In making significant improvements in disabled access or disabled facilities, there normally has to be substantial investment by either the operators or of public money. Unusually, this case is different. Bus operators have spent very large sums on low-floor vehicles, wheelchair places, grab rails and low-level bells, but that investment is to a considerable extent being wasted because of a simple lack of enforcement procedure. It is not only wheelchair passengers who find it difficult to access buses if they have to park out in the road because of parked vehicles. The amendment makes sense for other people with temporary mobility impairments, such as, most simply, young mothers with a number of children and a buggy.
The DRC does not feel that our amendment is necessary, as it says that the matter is the responsibility of local authorities, and that Clauses 2 and 3 should help to deal with local authorities that fail to keep bus stops clear. I have read and reread Clauses 2 and 3, and cannot see in practice for the life of me how they will solve the problem.
I shall digress for a moment into personal experience and, indeed, an admission of guilt. I frequently go to our butcher on Kennington Lane on a Saturday morning. It is very popular, and lots of people come and go. Years ago, I sometimes parked at the bus stop or the edge of it. That was very naughty of me. I was not really aware of what I was doing or how significant that could be. I certainly do not do that any more but, yet again, last Saturday, two or three vehicles were parked at that bus stop.
The present arrangements are not effective. People will not take much, if any, notice of the parking ticket deterrent, which is what we have. It seems perfectly reasonable not only that, if necessary, such parking should be made an offence punishable by a level 3 fine of up to £1,000, but—even more significantly—that it should be possible to have three penalty points on your driving licence as a result. I make another admission: that would be a very effective deterrent for me at the moment. I am sure that I am not alone in having some penalty points, given how many speed cameras there are these days.
It really is tragic that so much public sector service vehicle investment has been made but, because of people being selfish and not thinking and there not being an effective deterrent, it has in practice been wasted or seriously undermined. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I appreciate the way in which the noble Lord introduced the amendment, which I recognise is expressed in constructive terms. He will know that, under Section 40 of the Disability Discrimination Act, there is a power to introduce accessibility regulations in respect of public service vehicles. Indeed, we have already used that power to introduce the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations. They have applied to all new vehicles since 31 December 2000 used on a local and scheduled service that have a capacity of more than 22 passengers.
I emphasise the 22 passengers because, if the noble Lord intends to press his amendment at a subsequent stage, it will have to be drafted with a margin more
17 Jan 2005 : Column GC148
attention to detail than at present. It would apply to any vehicle that carries eight or more passengers. A family sports utility vehicle could fall within that category if it had eight seats; certainly a family minibus would. I am sure that it was not his intention to bring that within the framework of a public transport vehicle. There is another great difficulty. I realise the condign nature of attracting three penalty points on the offender's licence. However, it could not be enforced by local authorities, so we would need a different mechanism altogether. The amendment has those weaknesses.
In more general terms, we recognise that making vehicles accessible—we have made considerable progress on that over the past four to five years—is only a part solution to the problem. If the vehicle is accessible but it cannot get close enough to a place for people to have access to it, its inherent accessibility is set at naught. I recognise the difficulties of that. Part III of the DDA already applies to bus stations and airports, so accessibility is guaranteed in terms of the provision of facilities for the vehicles seeking to pick up the disabled. As the noble Lord emphasised, the problem is bus stops.
Clause 3 would place a new duty on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people, and that has implications for bus stops. It is clear that a vehicle parked at a bus stop reduces the effectiveness of our vehicle accessibility regulations. We have looked at the issue of bus stop parking very seriously in discussion with the bus industry and local authorities. It is largely one of traffic management and enforcement. We consulted in 1999 and 2000 on bus stop clearways which prohibit all vehicles except for limited stopping by local buses and taxis to set down and pick up passengers.
Responses indicated that bus operators and organisations representing passengers, and particularly disabled and older people, wanted all bus stops to be clearways for 24 hours every day of the week, with parking restrictions applying at all times. However, concerns were expressed that restrictions operating all day, every day, would present problems with enforcement, might not be appropriate on all bus routes—such as those on which the bus is an intermittent traveller—and could be unacceptable to local residents due to taking away their parking opportunities. Of course, it could have a negative impact on local businesses, such as the noble Lord's butcher, who am I not sure would be as enthusiastic in his avowal of the situation as the noble Lord himself.
Issues were also raised that the imposition of restrictions at times when buses were not running would prevent the use of valuable road space for such necessary activities as overnight deliveries to shops, without giving any compensating benefits to bus operators and passengers at times when no bus was running. We concluded that clearway restrictions and enforcement should not be required universally, and that, where they were used, they should be in force only while buses were operating. That approach was felt to be more sympathetic to the representations that we received.
17 Jan 2005 : Column GC149
In areas where bus stops are not obstructed by cars, it is not necessary to protect the stops. However, at busier locations, particularly in urban areas, we recognise the need for clearways, and have revised legislation to simplify the procedures for specifying and enforcing them. Local authorities are now able to introduce and enforce those without the necessity of a traffic regulation order. We have therefore made some progress in terms of empowering local authorities.
I emphasise that the amendment has defective qualities, but think that the noble Lord will recognise that I am arguing that a balance must be struck between the rights of access of the disabled to buses, which have been converted to promote such access, and the actual use of road space, for which there are always competing demands. We have to strike a balance between those competing demands.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |