I am much obliged, CfN! And thankful also for the kind comments of chuffed, and votes of others.
Long answer:It seems to me that the main point of law here is found in regulation 12 (4) of the The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990, which prohibit the carriage of a person
in a wheelchair other than in the wheelchair space, appropriately restrained, with the driver bearing the onus of discretion and responsibility. This is the trump card. Everything else is either (rather badly thought out and drafted) guidance to accompany those regulations, or reference to the Equality Act 2010, which majors on discrimination, none of which is particularly relevant - what was formerly referred to as
obiter dicta in law books. If it isn't possible to accommodate a wheelchair user on a bus, then he cannot be discriminated against by reason of his disability if that is the reason why he cannot be carried.*
I see that an appeal to the Supreme Court is being considered, something that must be utter music to the ears of lawyers everywhere. The issue concerns disability, which is sensitive, but the facts are not in doubt. Any appeal must therefore be on a point of law, and the law doesn't seem to be particularly unclear either. But for the sensitivity of the case, the aggrieved Mr Paulley would be refused leave to appeal further by the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court would refuse to hear it because the law and its application in this case are clear. The Supreme Court can still hear the case if it feels there is an important point of public interest. That is undeniable, but they can only interpret the law. That legislation, after the Court of Appeal judgment, now looks like fine words about a noble idea, but with little strength - the inhabitants of our former colony may refer to it as "All mouth and no trousers".
So back to the legislature it is, then. You made the bus companies, at no small expense, provide for space for a wheelchair. You also made drivers responsible for the safety of their passengers within the confines of their company's stated policy and the law relating to the operation of public transport. Your legislation has been found wanting, or maybe not, on two occasions at least, so what do you want to do now?
Parliament could vote to make it compulsory for a wheelchair space to be cleared for a wheelchair-bound passenger, but would have to consider the safety of, as this case shows, a sleeping child in a pushchair. A mother, supported by a pressure group, could mount a similar challenge, with case law behind her.* Or it could require operators to revise their own policies, in which case the policies would have to become part of the law to take real effect. Or it could, and this is what I will take to Ladbrokes, set up a commission of some kind to gather evidence and make recommendations as to what form of consultation should be conducted to enable... etc.
(* Interpretation Act 2005:
Section 6: Gender and number.
In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears,^
(a)words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;
(b)words importing the feminine gender include the masculine;
(c)words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular.
So there. Now I do feel like I am writing an essay on some form of contract or tort law.)
Short answer: No change.
