In the House... Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs etc.) Bill - excerpts: 19 Jul 2002

'Where an assistance dog being carried in a private hire vehicle causes damage, vomits, urinates or defecates therein then the disabled person accompanying the assistance dog shall be liable for the full cost of repairing and cleaning the private hire vehicle, the amount being recoverable as a civil debt.'. - [Sir Sydney Chapman.]

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining what I think would be the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. Were we to adopt new clause 1 and amendment No. 2, we would impose on dogs something that we do not impose on people. Yet all the evidence is that some people - a minority - behave much more unacceptably than most dogs. Therefore, the proposals are unnecessary.

The experience of the House, not to mention that of individual Members, the advice of our constituents and of the RNIB, is profound. Nearly every day we are delighted to see a guide dog in the House. Very often, the guide dog behaves much better than the average Member, yet no one would seek to impose draconian rules on Members regarding their behaviour. It is certainly not necessary for that wonderful dog, which comes in with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).

...

Lawrie Quinn: I am sure that all hon. Members would appreciate not only my hon. Friend's skills as a dog owner, but the fact that he has a legal background. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said in his opening remarks that the current civil law of tort made provision for recovery of a debt if a vehicle is soiled. Will my hon. Friend confirm from his experience as a lawyer that that is the case now and that it would be the case if the Bill were to become a statute?

Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I shall come to that issue shortly, and there are some points to be made about the present legal position in the absence of the new clause.

The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) suggested in an intervention that, if the dog owner were sight impaired or blind, he might not be able to see the condition of the dog. That is an important point, but it goes against the argument, which he was trying to advance, that the owner may not be aware of the condition of the dog at the time. The briefing from the RNIB says that will be a very unusual occurrence and that it would arise only if the dog were ill, for example, because such dogs are properly trained and well behaved. I certainly take that point on board, but even if such occurrences are comparatively rare, it is important to ensure that the rights of the car owner or driver are protected because the damage could be expensive to repair.

...

Lawrie Quinn: Is my hon. Friend aware that taxis in some seaside towns, not least the towns of Scarborough and Whitby, display the terms of carriage, which often state the fine for soiling. Under the new clause, the terms of the contract would have to be made available in Braille, and before a booking was made those terms would have to be explained. Does that not provide over-regulation, which I am sure the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) does not intend?

Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes an important point, which relates to the distinction I was making between black cabs and minicabs. If a driver picks up a passenger off the street, the contract of hire is immediately between the passenger and the driver, who, as part of the contract, can specify the terms, which could include the need for liquidated damages should this problem arise. The difficulty is that, first, the driver has no say in whether to accept the contract - we are making that clear in the Bill - and, secondly, the contract may not be between the driver and the passenger, and, thus, there is no privity of contract that can be enforced between the driver and the passenger, because the contract may be between the passenger and the minicab company, which sub-contracts the hire to the driver. That is the problem that one can reach in contract.

Whether I am right or wrong, these points are arguable at law. I would hate the small claims court to have to adjudicate between a sight-impaired person and a minicab driver. It would be far better to have a very clear statutory term under which, if damage is done, the reasonable cost could be met, whether through the public liability insurance policy to which the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) referred, or by the owner of the dog.

...

Lawrie Quinn: Many Members will be aware that my hon. Friend has great expertise in industrial law and health and safety law. I return to my earlier intervention about the relationship between the subcontractor and the contractor. I followed my hon. Friend's argument. However, in terms of health and safety provisions at work, what is the liability in the relationship between the subcontractor and the cab hire company? Surely anyone who found himself in medical difficulties because of taking jobs that involved the carrying of a dog on many occasions could take some action against his employer or the person to which he was contracted, namely the minicab hire company.

Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend's intervention raises complicated areas of law, especially in relation to vicarious liability in terms of the main contractor and the sub-contractor. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not like me to go down that road. However, my hon. Friend has a valid point that needs to be addressed at some stage. The purpose of health and safety legislation is to ensure that people do not get injured or ill in the first place. However, if they do get ill or injured, there must be compensation arrangements afterwards. In my view, the purpose of health and safety legislation is preventative rather than compensatory.

...

Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend mentions a loophole. On amendment No. 2, what would happen if a dog becomes boisterous or agitated during a journey? If the Scooby Doo dog becomes animated - although Scooby Doo is, of course, already animated - would the driver be able to stop in the middle of the journey and ask the passenger with said dog to leave? How would that affect the original contract?

Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. Amendment No. 2 deals with the behaviour of a dog before it gets in the vehicle. It does not deal with what happens if a dog becomes agitated after it gets into the vehicle. I suspect that amendment No. 10 addresses that problem, although I accept that it may not be on all fours with his argument. I would be much happier if the definition of assistance dog in amendments Nos. 2 and 10 applied to a dog that had been trained by a prescribed charity no matter what the disability. If we do not address that serious loophole today, it will have to be sorted out in another place.

Reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO