Sir (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove exemptions from
requirements to provide access or services to a person who is
accompanied by an assistance dog; to make the undertaking of
disability equality training in relation to assistance dogs a
condition of holding a licence to drive a taxi or private hire
vehicle; to prohibit the parking of motor vehicles on pavements
and footpaths; and for connected purposes.
Just imagine how hard life would be if you could not see. There
are amazing people, however, who can use a dog to help them go
about their daily life—dogs trained so skilfully that they can
transform opportunities for blind people. Sadly, almost a third
of people with sight loss are reluctant to go out on their own,
and almost half of guide dog owners are forced to change or
restrict where they are willing or able to go. As we see
assistance dogs able to help more people with more and different
disabilities, this Bill will solve some of the problems that
these dog owners face.
We have all felt for a light switch in a dark room at home, and
we can understand those feelings of frustration, helplessness or
even panic. If that is what it is like to turn on the lights in
our own homes, imagine trying to do so somewhere strange, where a
mishap could mean cracking one's head on a kerb or, worse, being
hit by a truck. No shop, no restaurant and no supermarket should
be turning away someone with an assistance dog. No taxi driver
should be worrying about dog allergies when they see a blind
person, because they must and will know how to look after them,
because they have been trained to deal with those customers. No
pavement should be an obstacle course, blocked by parked
vehicles.
I am proud that in North Herefordshire people with sight loss
have an especially esteemed place. Hereford is home to the Royal
National College for the Blind, where young people with visual
impairment receive training and education. It is wonderful to
witness these individuals learning not to cope, but to thrive.
However, figures suggest that 74% of people with assistance dogs
were turned away from food and drink outlets between July 2021
and July 2022; that 53% experienced a refusal when visiting a
shop; and that 37% were told “No” by hotels and bed and
breakfasts. All of that is in spite of the Equality Act 2010,
under which the vast majority of such refusals are already
illegal. The Equality Act protects the assistance dog, not the
person, so it allows for far wider opportunity for access.
It is the plight of these people, however, that is of the
greatest importance to me, because of how the Royal National
College for the Blind is located in Herefordshire, but also
because I am a Royal National Institute of Blind People champion
and the owner of a former guide dog, Warwick. There is no reason
why anybody should be turning away assistance dog users. “Angry”,
“embarrassed”, “disappointed” and “isolated” are the words used
by respondents to a Guide Dogs UK survey to describe such bad
experiences. But, of course, the dogs say nothing.
At a time when the RNIB reports that only 56% of blind and
partially sighted people have received vision rehabilitation
support and 26% of local authorities have left people waiting
more than a year for assessment and support, it is critical that
we do more, and we must do it now.
Working assistance dogs receive up to two years of intensive
training—and that is before the further training they get during
their working lives. They are not disruptive, because they are so
highly trained. I have tested this on our family dog, Warwick.
When we—the owners—go for a walk with our dogs, we lead our dogs
across the road, but Warwick can lead me across the road.
These dogs are hygienic. The fact that the Food Standards Agency
has confirmed that assistance dogs should be allowed entry to
food shops and premises proves that. I have seen the facilities
for blind owners to be trained on how to maintain the high
standards of grooming required for these dogs, and vets regularly
check them.
Because most blind owners keep their retired guide dogs, my Bill
will go further and allow retired assistance dogs to have that
same universal access. Those retired dogs are often still owned
by their original users and are just as well trained as working
assistance dogs. It is already recognised that they are well
disciplined and that they present no risk of disruption or
hygiene issues, so what reasons are there to refuse them and
their handlers access? There is none.
Even if permitting access to assistance dogs were a burden on
business owners—as I have outlined, it is not—the numbers
involved are so small that any negative effects would be
negligible. Just over 7,000 people in our country rely on
assistance dogs, of which about 4,500 are guide dogs. That is
just one person in every 10,000.
Currently, taxi and private hire vehicle drivers can be issued
with exemptions from carrying assistance dogs on medical grounds.
Some people are allergic to dogs—that is an unavoidable fact—but
only taxi and minicab drivers can hold exemptions due to allergy.
There are only 7,000 assistance dogs out there, so surely we can
accommodate everyone. If it is a legal requirement for owners and
employees in small shops to accept assistance dogs, why should
taxi and PVH drivers be allowed a total exemption?
Since covid, protective screens for drivers have become
widespread and are easy to fit. We need drivers to be trained to
think ahead so that they have a solution to their dog allergy
rather than refusing to carry a blind person. It is what we all
do—we give consideration to how we can accommodate disability
rather than reject disabled people—yet 81% of guide dog owners,
according to research by Guide Dogs in 2022, have been refused
access to taxis. Almost 63% had experienced that in the previous
12 months.
In 2016, a private Member's Bill contributed to the formation of
a Department for Transport task and finish group looking into
that. Three years later, the Government agreed to make it a
requirement for drivers to undertake disability equality
training, yet, despite Government commitments, last year only 62%
of authorities required disability equality training for taxis.
In Northern Ireland, where training is required, instances of
access refusals for taxis are rare. Training and forethought are
the solution.
Equally clear is the solution to the problems that face
assistance dog owners on foot. In 2019, 80% of blind or partially
sighted people reported that pavement parking made it difficult
for them to walk on pavements at least once a week, and more than
95% of people with sight loss stated that it had forced them to
walk in the road. Consequently, one in five people with sight
loss have been injured because of pavement parking. We should be
helping these people, not impeding them.
The England blind football team train in Hereford. They stand as
a testament to the fact that people with sight loss can do almost
everything that someone who does not suffer visual impairment
can. The next time someone thinks that they need to park on the
pavement, they should try shutting their eyes when they try to
take a shower and see what a mess they make. In London, where
pavement parking has been heavily restricted since 1974, only 26%
of people with sight loss face daily problems, while, in the
country at large, that figure is 45%.
There are already ways for the police to fine obstructive
vehicles, but enforcement is the issue. Prohibiting pavement
parking would do a great deal to help people with sight loss. It
has been done London, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, so it
is possible and it does work. The Transport Committee's report of
September 2019 recommended it.
I know that the Government are committed to the wellbeing and
equality of people who use assistance dogs. The Bill would make
the lives of people with assistance dogs easier. It would also
encourage and support people who use dogs—or perhaps want to use
a dog—but are afraid of being made to walk home in the rain,
barred from using a taxi or restaurant and forced off the
pavement and into the traffic by pavement parking. Just imagine
if that person was you.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir , , , , , Mr , Dame , Mr , Dr , and present the Bill.
Sir accordingly presented the
Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21
June, and to be printed (Bill 214).
