LAW COMMISSION ADVISORY GROUP ON TAXI AND PRIVATE REGULATION
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 22th NOVEMBER 2011
ATTENDEES
Law Commission
Frances Patterson QC Commissioner, Public law team
Richard Percival Team manager, Public law team
Vindelyn Smith-Hillman, Economic Adviser
Jessica Uguccioni Team lawyer, Public law team
Hannah Gray Research assistant, Public law team
Trade associations
Paul Brent Chairman, National Taxi Association
Bob Oddy General Secretary, Licensed Taxi Drivers Association
Patrick Connor National Taxi Trades Group
Tommy McIntyre National Taxi Representative, Unite the Union
Mick Carty, RMT
Bryan Roland General Secretary, National Private Hire Association
Steve Wright MBE Chairman, Licensed Private Hire Car Association
Patrick Raeburn, Private Hire Board
Mick Hildreth Secretary, GMB Professional Drivers National Organising Committee
Bill Bowling Legislation officer, National Limousine and Chauffeur Association
Geoffrey Riesel Chairman, Radio Taxis Group – representing radio circuit operators
Julian Francis Government Affairs Manager, London Taxi Company
Donald Pow General manager, Allied Vehicles
Deborah Hunter Sales and marketing executive, Digitax Electronics UK Ltd.
Regulatory bodies
Sarah Wooller Head of Taxi and PSV regulation branch, Department for Transport
Pippa Brown Taxi and PSV regulation branch, Department for Transport
Simon Woodward Lawyer, Department for Transport
John Mason Director of Taxi and Private Hire, Transport for London
Tom Moody, Transport for London
Roger Butterfield Honorary solicitor, National Association of Licensing Enforcement Officers
Eddie Gorman National Chair, National Association of Licensing Enforcement Officers
Huw Thomas Integrated Transport Division, Welsh Government
Yvonne Lewis Licensing Officers, City and County of Swansea Council
Dafydd Jones Principal Licensing Officers, Gwynedd County Council
Myles Bebbington Vice Chair, Institute of Licensing
Vicki Ball Policy Manager, People 1st, Go Skills
User groups
Dai Powell OBE Chair, Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Group
Ian Millership Vice Chair, National Association of Taxi Users
Consultants
James Button James Button and Co Solicitors, author of Button on Taxis
Darren Tenney S2IPA Consultancy (Shared Service Implementation and Policy Advisers)
Introduction
As we noted in the briefing paper, the views set out during the advisory group meeting outline our current thinking and were intended to encourage discussion on the topics which appeared on the agenda. It is important to understand that they are not the official views of the Law Commission but merely the current views of the project team. Nothing has yet been approved as the Commission’s official provisional proposals, still less the final views of the Commission. Any references to the Law Commission should therefore be read accordingly.
One-/two-tier
1.1 Jessica Uguccioni (JU) opened the meeting by welcoming those present. It was explained that the views expressed in the briefing paper were provisional. The Law Commission was to publish a consultation paper in April 2012. The proposals contained within the briefing paper circulated prior to the meeting remained susceptible to change pending the outcome of the consultation period.
1.2 The first issue on the agenda was that of the structure of the taxi and private hire industries. JU explained that the Law Commission felt that analysing the markets on a simple one or two tier basis oversimplified matters. In reality, many one–tier proposals contained aspects which rendered them more like a two-tier system. The Law Commission’s current thinking preferred a modified two-tier system.
1.3 A two-tier system allowed for more targeted regulation and could accommodate the imbalance in competition in the two industries.
1.4 Steve Wright (SW) expressed a preference for a two-tier system. He felt that it worked very well in London and that, with the introduction of improved technology, its functioning would improve. The introduction of a one-tier system would lead to the collapse of the private hire industry and thus passengers’ ability to pre-book.
1.5 Tommy McIntyre (TM) agreed that maintaining the pre-booked market was positive for customer choice. He also noted that fare setting in one market was often done by reference to fares in the other market. Furthermore, the problem of insufficient rank space would only be exacerbated by shifting to a one-tier system.
1.6 Dai Powell (DP) noted that pre-booking was essential to disabled persons who could not obtain a vehicle in another way.
1.7 Patrick Connor (PC) felt that moving to a one-tier system risked creating a “honeypot” situation which would reduce provision in non-urban areas.
1.8 Bryan Roland (BR) noted that 95% of drivers were self-employed. Private hire operators were concerned that a one-tier system would not give them sufficient control over drivers to allow them to cope with demand. The labour market was a different shape in each area and it was not possible to say to what extent driving work represented the main source of income.
1.9 SW added that he felt a one-tier system would lead to a “honeypot” situation. Drivers would not be willing to pay operators’ fees and, given that there was very little hailing in suburban areas, all vehicles would work in city centres, reducing provision elsewhere.
1.10 James Button (JB) questioned why it was not possible to allow for pre-booking in a one-tier system.
1.11 Geoffrey Riesel (GR) felt that a two-tier system was required for practical reasons; however, he noted that many other countries operated one-tier systems which allowed for pre-booking. The private hire industry had come into existence where there was a lack of taxis, often due to quantity restrictions. It was not possible to tear up the existing system and start again, as this would be very damaging to business.
1.12 BR felt that outside of city centres, vehicles worked in what was essentially a one-tier system. There was no ranking or plying.
1.13 Julian Francis (JF) expressed the view that taxis and PHVs could be distinguished on the basis that taxis were an emanation of the state and part of public transport, whilst PHVs were not. PHVs represented a market-led response intended to fulfil specific pockets of demand.
1.14 Bob Oddy (BO) noted that a one-tier system would be in conflict with requirements for disabled access.
Technology
1.15 JU raised the issue of technology. It was important that future regulation was structured in such a way that it was not rendered obsolete by the development of more advanced technology. It was noted that the distinction between plying or ranking and pre-booking was not always clear from the consumer’s point of view.
1.16 SW felt that technological advances interfaced better with private hire and the position of the operator than with individual drivers. Technology connecting passengers directly with drivers had not been successful in London. Where taxi drivers could pick up an immediate fare, they would choose this over driving further to pick up a booked fare.
1.17 GR felt that apps struggled to get leverage where the interface was with the driver rather than a circuit or cooperative. In Sweden and Denmark 75% of taxis worked on radio circuits and were pre-booked. In other countries the majority of taxis belonged to radio circuits and operated in this way. He felt that this worked well in Scandinavia because of weather conditions. Private hire vehicles could provide services which taxis could not, such as variation in degree of luxury, size and accessibility. He felt that the distinction between the two had arisen for licensing reasons.
1.18 Richard Percival (RP) questioned whether the market might shift to a greater use of circuits and cooperatives in a single tier system.
1.19 GR noted that outside London provision varied greatly. Where taxis and PHVs essentially amounted to the same thing there was the possibility of allowing PHVs to ply for hire.
1.20 BR questioned whether it was necessary to link the idea of a taxi to that of a rank, as in many areas ranks did not exist. Taxis received most of their work from the radio. This was a significant distinction between London and elsewhere.
1.21 JB noted that the group was working under the assumption that taxis should be allowed to ply for hire, rank and undertake pre-booked work. He questioned whether there was scope for prohibiting pre-booking in the taxi market. RP responded that it was unlikely that taxis would be prevented from undertaking pre-booked work.
1.22 RP explained that the Law Commission was considering proposing a two-tier system with national standards for PHVs but a more local approach for taxi licensing. The main concerns here were the impact of technology on the distinction between the two and the extent to which the two trades were closely linked, for example in relation to training. He further noted that it may be possible in such a system for local authorities to create a de facto one-tier system by applying the national PHV standards to taxis.
1.23 Myles Bebbington (MB) noted that if mandatory PHV standards were set nationally, local authorities might see taxi conditions as their only tool to raise standards. This could lead to the imposition of onerous conditions, effectively destroying the taxi trade in that area by imposing costly barriers to entry. JU noted that one potential proposal was that licensing authorities would be restricted as to the conditions they could impose.
1.24 TM expressed agreement with the suggestion of national standards. Many of the conditions imposed by local authorities were ludicrous.
1.25 RP noted that the idea of national standards went against the current trend in favour of localism. For such a proposal to succeed it would have to bring clear benefits.
1.26 SW summed up the arguments against a one-tier system as follows: supply for pre-booked customers would be compromised, as would accessibility for disabled persons; increased cruising would lead to environmental problems; consumer choice would be damaged.
1.27 GR noted that de-regulation in Ireland had led to a particularly difficult situation. RP noted however that it was important to recognise that Irish deregulation had occurred instantly following a court decision and as such had not be a managed process.
1.28 John Mason (JM) agreed with comments on service provision under a two-tier system. He noted the pride invested in London taxis, particularly in relation to their accessibility, and the importance of passenger choice. He did not feel that answering the challenges posed by technology necessitated revisiting the one or two tier question.
1.29 Roger Butterfield (RB) believed that most local authorities would accept basic national standards such as the age of a vehicle. This would prevent licensees shopping around for cheaper fees and lower standards and would reduce complexity.
1.30 BR noted that prior to the 1980s, taxis had been classed at public transport. The subsequent exclusion of vehicles with fewer than nine seats had changed the taxi footprint. He questioned whether taxis should be brought back into the public transport category and be included in local transport plans.
1.31 RP responded that the legal status of taxis was not the issue here; rather, it was important to think about how we conceptualise the fleet. This tied in with the question of the taxi as an aspect of civic pride – did this make them a semi-public entity?
1.32 Some examples were given of ways in which taxis integrated with public transport, for example distribution of taxi vouchers for people unable to use the bus in Kirklees and smartcards giving an automatic discount in Dundee.
Night-time economy
1.33 JU noted that issues relating to the night-time economy placed a strain on the two-tier system. There were insufficient taxis to service the night-time economy and PHVs could only be used where they had been pre-booked. The group was asked to consider the sorts of schemes which could be used to alleviate these problems, following examples such as the Best Bar None and Purple Flag schemes and marshalled ranks.
1.34 BR felt that much of the problem stemmed from the lack of alternatives such as night buses. He suggested that allowing taxis to have more than eight seats could help with clearing town centres. In 1982 the Department for Transport (DfT) had encouraged licensing authorities to licence vehicles with as many seats as possible, but since 1985 a taxi or PHV had to have eight seats or fewer.
1.35 Eddie Gorman (EG) raised the possibility of using bus stop and bus stations as taxi ranks. He had attempted to introduce this in Bolton but had met with resistance.
1.36 RP explained that the Law Commission was exploring the possibility of different regulatory structures for the night-time economy and was particularly interested in the question of supply. The suggestion had been made of allowing PHVs to use marshalled ranks. It was felt that this could help with supply and enforcement, for example enforcement against illegal plying by PHVs and touting by unlicensed vehicles.
1.37 The group generally was clearly against the concept of ranking for PHVs. MB felt that this would encourage cross-border issues with PHVs coming into town centres from outlying areas.
1.38 SW felt that allowing marshalled PHV ranks would destroy pre-booking as operators would lose control of their workforce. RP noted that the suggestions only extended to night-time and that what was envisaged was a window of de-regulation.
1.39 BO believed that the suggestion of a window of deregulation amounted to a window during which PHV would effectively become taxis. He did not think this was desirable.
1.40 Patrick Raeburn (PR) explained that he operated entirely in the night-time economy, servicing clubs and bars. He was concerned that he would lose all his drivers if they were allowed to rank at night.
1.41 GR felt that if there was a need to allow PHVs to behave like this, the solution was more taxi drivers. If there was a justification for higher standards in the taxi industry then that justification applied equally, if not more so, at night.
1.42 SW expressed the view that PHVs needed to be able to pick up and set down more easily. Where PHVs could not get near their pre-booked passengers there was greater opportunity for touts to operate.
1.43 Mick Hildreth (MH) pointed out that the night-time economy operated differently in each local authority. He felt that a national decision on these matters would be very difficult.
1.44 TM noted that most major cities already operated marshalled ranks and related services in order to ensure a good service at night. One of the main issues was that drivers were unwilling to work at night. MB pointed out that problems persisted in smaller towns. He felt that this was an argument in favour of a one-tier system, given that passengers simply wanted to get in a car.
1.45 BR felt that PHV ranks already existed in the form of booking offices with cars stationed nearby. Ian Millership (IM) noted that some passengers made return booking with PHVs when they went out and were able to ensure they took the correct vehicle. He agreed with the point made by BR that the booking office represented the PHV rank. However, the night-time user was very different to the day-time user. At night users simply wanted to get home, making safety the paramount issue.
Enforcement and licensing
1.46 JU explained that the Law Commission was looking at the interface between national standards and localism in relation to enforcement. Of particular interest were powers against out-of-area vehicles and touts, and the increased use of joint enforcement operations.
1.47 RB believed that joint enforcement operations could work well. In his previous job he had been an authorised officer for the five districts of West Yorkshire. Enforcement officers would work between the areas and were able to recognise vehicles licensed in their own area. Where vehicles used radio circuits the presence of an enforcement officer acted as a deterrent as word spread amongst drivers. He felt that this system had worked well.
1.48 JB noted that enlarging borders would only reduce the scale of the problem, rather than eradicating it. Local authorities were empowered to set up joint boards to licence vehicles but did not do so. RP added that many authorities were currently merging their management. JB felt that although this was happening, policies remained distinct as local authorities wished to maintain their autonomy. Officers might work together but under different policies.
1.49 Yvonne Lewis (YL) explained that Swansea had a significant problem with cross-border hiring. Neighbouring authorities had lower fees and standards. Swansea had a vibrant night-time economy and experienced problems with taxis and PHVs; for example, there was insufficient room for PHVs to pick up and drop off. She felt that the cross-border issue concerned standards, fees and a lack of powers. Drivers knew that enforcement officers lacked powers and were happy to let officers know this.
1.50 RP noted that one of the significant problems was the difficulty of enforcing against touts. Enforcement officers did not have the power to stop cars or demand that the driver produce the requisite licences. He noted that there may be issues of principle in giving enforcement officers powers over members of the public who were not licensed at all.
1.51 Darren Tenney (DT) noted that his organisation was currently engaged in a consultancy looking at shared service agreements for licensing. The local authorities concerned were a city centre authority and the five districts surrounding it. A major driver for the scheme was the procurement needs of the education/social services authority for transport for children and vulnerable adults. He felt that there was a huge lack of communication and information sharing between authorities, which severely hampered enforcement. Enforcement officers needed to be able to enforce against any vehicle in their area. He noted that the authority his company was working with had considered expanding its borders but that it had struggled to conceive of a licence which would be suitable for both urban and rural areas. The “honeypot” situation risked increasing touting, as there would be a rise in the number of vehicles and increased enforcement difficulties. Where areas were merged officers had to have information on vehicles from other areas in order to be able to enforce against them.
1.52 Bill Bowling (BB) explained that limousines encountered major problems with cross-border restrictions. They could not readily operate within just one area.
1.53 BR felt that a lack of clarity was to blame for many of the cross-border issues. Legislation did not make it clear who had the right to work where. This lack of clarity had led to situations such as that in Berwick. He also felt that the inability to re-zone was a problem, given the problems that Durham had recently experienced. JU noted that the ability to re-zone was something that the Law Commission was considering.
1.54 SW felt that borders failed PHV users. He believed cross-border restrictions to be an example of protectionism. He gave the example of London, with 32 boroughs and ten million people, which is controlled by one regulator. JU clarified that the Law Commission was not proposing boundaries in relation to PHVs.
1.55 JB questioned the need for taxi boundaries where licensing ensured the safety and reliability of the driver and vehicle. RP thought that this was an interesting question. The current thinking of the Law Commission tended to prefer a borderless system for PHVs but recognised the link between taxis and localism. JU noted that a two-tier system would allow regulation to be tailored to local needs.
1.56 MB raised a concern about the cost to the trade of fees set by licensing authorities, and lower fees attracting a greater number of drivers and vehicles. RP noted that where standards were set nationally, it may be appropriate that fees also be set nationally. It could be possible to require taxi license fees to be set no lower than those for PHVs, or it could be expected that local authorities would ensure this. Appropriate setting of standards and fees could remove the incentive for Berwick-type licensing.
1.57 TM expressed the view that the concordat between local authorities on Merseyside did not assist in solving cross-border problems. He felt that the solution would be to require vehicles to return to their area after a drop-off. He had no objections to vehicles taking a radio job outside their own area. He felt that this would create a level playing field. RP noted that the Law Commission did not currently envisage creating such an obligation and that PHVs should be allowed to respond to the market wherever it was located. Requiring PHVs to return to their own area could be anti-competitive and would not help customers.
1.58 GR added that allowing PHVs to pick up anywhere ignored the question of pre-booked taxis. RP responded that a pre-booked taxi could already pick up anywhere. GR noted that issues may arise where technology has been used to secure the taxi, as it may be unclear whether it had been booked or not.
Operator licensing
1.59 JU raised the question of operator licensing and its justification as an extra layer of regulation above vehicle and driver licensing.
1.60 BR was strongly of the view that operator licensing provided the first line of enforcement. Operators were obliged to carry out checks on drivers and vehicles. He could not understand why this should not apply to taxi operators.
1.61 JB felt that the only legal justification of operator licensing was that it created a paper trail capable of showing whether a booking had in fact been made. He questioned whether they served any other purpose. If it was felt that there were good safety reasons for retaining operator licensing, then it should be extended to taxis. If it did not concern safety then the requirement was meaningless.
1.62 SW felt that operator licensing gave massive benefits. It assisted in the detection of crime, ensured vehicles were properly insured and generally provided checks and measures to ensure safety. None of these checks were in place in relation to taxis. He agreed that operators provided the first line of enforcement.
1.63 EG felt that ceasing to regulate operators would encourage organised crime as the threat of enforcement currently deterred this. Tracking vehicles and drivers helped with enforcement. He did not, however, feel operator licensing was necessary for taxis.
1.64 RP concluded by noting the two central aspects of operator licensing: information gathering and ensuring that the operator was a fit and proper person. It might be possible for the former to be done using other means, but the latter would not be easy without licensing.
Conditions
1.65 JU invited views on the Law Commission’s suggestions regarding the setting of conditions for taxis and PHVs.
1.66 RB was in favour of limited conditions within a tight framework. BR agreed. He was in favour of the London structure, where regulations were set by the Secretary of State. Locally imposed rules were acceptable but should not be allowed to go further than fares.
1.67 MB felt that regulation needed to be very clear and restrictive on discretion, otherwise authorities would take conditions to the extreme, undermining the system. It was important to look at the cost to the trade and to bear in mind the political influence behind the setting of conditions.
1.68 JF agreed that it was important to bear in mind the political angle. If councils were given even limited discretion they would be creative with it in order to impose further conditions. Many councils were driven by political pressures and their responsibilities to constituents and would be willing to have their licensing conditions tested in court.
1.69 JB felt that some authorities saw licensing as a cash cow and sought to profit from conditions. It would be difficult to create an entirely level playing field in terms of fees charged.
1.70 JM noted that standards as currently set in London had been accepted politically and that change would not be politically acceptable. He believed that the project was unlikely to succeed if it had a negative impact on London.
Disabled access
1.71 Hannah Gray (HG) asked the group whether a) they felt that it was necessary to regulate PHVs in order to ensure proper provision for disabled persons, as opposed to relying on the market, and b) how they envisioned provision being made in the taxi market. She noted that the distinctions between the way in which provision could be ensured in the two markets strengthened the argument for a two-tier system.
1.72 DP explained that taxis provided a vital service for disabled people. However, it was important to recognise that wheelchair accessible vehicles were not accessible to all disabled persons. He was against a 100% wheelchair accessible requirement across the board. He was in favour of mixed fleets. The PHV trade outside of London contained a higher number of wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs) than the taxi trade.
1.73 DP was in favour of a requirement that there be a minimum number of WAVs. He felt that training was paramount, on the grounds that taxis should be seen as part of the public transport network. Furthermore, many of the obstacles faced by disabled persons were attitudinal, with drivers refusing to stop for them or unable to respond to their needs. In addition, he felt strongly that there should be a national identifier on vehicles.
1.74 GR recognised that wheelchair accessible vehicles can be difficult to access for other users. In the US a separate industry had arisen to deal with these issues. The paratransit industry was entirely made up of trained drivers with specially adapted vehicles.
1.75 PC explained that Manchester had been the first city to have a 100% wheelchair accessible fleet. Problems arose where drivers on radio circuits were not told that the passenger they were picking up was disabled. Sometimes their homes were not equipped to enable the driver to give them assistance in leaving the house and getting into the vehicle. He also felt that the requirements on taxis were at times more onerous than those on buses, and that this should be rectified.
1.76 BR raised the issue of transport hubs served only by PHVs, leaving no taxi provision. He questioned whether there should be a requirement for contractors such as railway stations and airports to ensure that their disability duties were met by ensuring provision of WAVs.
1.77 DP was in favour of a national standard for PHVs as this would ensure passengers knew what they were booking.
1.78 JF noted that the issue was accessible vehicles generally, not just WAVs. Allowing mixed fleets would lead to increased commercial pressures, with drivers preferring low cost vehicles and thus limiting the range of vehicles available to passengers. He questioned how prescriptive local authorities should be allowed to be in order to avoid this race to the bottom. MH agreed that problems arose in relation to the affordability of vehicles.
1.79 TM felt that training should be a pre-requisite. He had been involved in training and the Vocationally-Related Qualification included working with disabled passengers. He believed that private hire drivers were also in favour of training.
1.80 SW expressed the view that a quota system would be unworkable. The majority of drivers were self-employed and operators could not stipulate which vehicles drivers should use. Problems would arise if any of the fleet’s accessible vehicles broke down. He believed that the provision of WAVs within the PHV market was sufficient, with many specialist companies on the market. Where a journey is pre-booked the operator can provide an appropriate vehicle.
1.81 Donald Pow (DoP) felt that training was very important. He recognised that one style of vehicle would not suit all disabled passengers. He raised concern that very particular technical conditions led to a restricted market and limited the diversity and range of vehicles available. This tied in with the themes of equality and safety.
1.82 JM noted that a disabled person was far more likely to be able to flag down a WAV in London than elsewhere. He believed accessibility issues to stem from training and attitude rather than vehicle specification and availability.
1.83 BR stated that 132 councils had no requirement on WAVs. He hoped that the Equality Act would have an impact as councils needed to be obliged to do something.
Quantity restrictions
1.84 RP explained that the blunt nature of quantity restriction and the current de-regulatory climate meant that restrictions would have to be justified. Currently it seemed that only defensible argument was that linking deregulation to congestion, rather than unmet need.
1.85 JM noted that there were no limits in London but that he was under huge pressure to introduce them. This was particularly the case in suburban areas where there was oversupply.
1.86 GR believed that there were effective barriers to entry in London. Quantity restriction arguments tended to centre on plate value. He believed that sensitive regulation looked at the economic situation of the area in question and allowed for periodic growth. Although the Law Commission did not believe that arguments as to driver earnings justified restrictions, GR believed that maintaining earnings was important to maintaining the industry. Deregulation in Sweden had led to ten years of chaos before good companies had emerged. JU responded that the distinction between good and bad companies could be resolved by setting standards at the correct level. Quantity restriction should not be used as a tool to ensure quality.
1.87 Vindelyn Smith-Hillman (VSH) noted that problems around numerical deregulation could arise as a result of other reforms which had taken place at the same time. National standards could help to avoid these problems.
1.88 JB recognised that quantitative restrictions were an emotive issue. There was no argument for quantity restrictions in the PHV trade, which led him to question the need for restrictions on taxi numbers. He believed this to be an example of protectionism. An area could sustain a particular quantity of vehicles and this could be split between taxis and PHVs.
1.89 DoP felt that the public was served not only by the number of vehicles but also by the quality of the fleet. He believed this to be higher in restricted areas. Restrictions led to greater confidence in business models and guaranteed reasonable earnings. De-regulation could also have a negative impact on supply in the night-time economy as there would be fewer PHVs.
1.90 VSH asked whether this could be countered by setting high standards. DoP felt that it was preferable for the market to lead standards.
1.91 TM explained that the Wirral had de-restricted following two unmet demand surveys. Taxi numbers had risen from 82 to more than 360. Many of those who had migrated from the PHV trade went bankrupt. The police had supported re-regulation because of the impact on congestion.
1.92 JF noted that taxi drivers tended to be sole traders and as such had limited earning potential. De-restriction discouraged entry to the market and affected supply. It would encourage drivers to push for higher fares, thus reducing public uptake and creating a downward push on standards. Examples that he was aware of included owners using unaccredited garages for MOTs and “cannibalising” vehicles.
1.93 BR argued that evidence showed that deregulated areas with high standards were very successful in controlling numbers and congestion and ensuring a mixed fleet. He was in favour of a qualification for operators, as they were often inexperienced in running businesses.
1.94 PC explained that Manchester had introduced a growth rate, with surveys every three years and an average of 20 vehicles added each time. He noted that finance companies were reluctant to lend to would-be drivers in de-regulated areas.
1.95 BO felt that the question was very complex. A survey undertaken by Ipsos MORI had shown sufficient supply in London. He believed that quantity restriction had to be considered alongside fare regulation, and thought that if an area was to be de-restricted, drivers should be compensated by being allowed to charge higher fares.
1.96 MB believed that de-regulated areas lost a significant proportion of their WAVs, resulting in a mixed fleet run on a low-cost basis. One local authority he had in mind had since re-regulated but had required all new licensed vehicles to be WAVs. Those coming into the trade should be encouraged to consider the business case for doing so.
Scope and other issues
London
1.97 JU asked the group whether there was any justification for London continuing to be treated differently to the rest of England and Wales.
1.98 JM felt the review provided an opportunity to tidy up some of the legislation but that in general London provided a good model for elsewhere.
1.99 BO expressed the view that choice of vehicle in London should be less restrictive. The financial burden fell on drivers and he did not think it was right that their choice should be so limited. He agreed with maintaining accessibility but felt that other aspects could be altered. For example, the need for a particular turning circle could be left to the discretion of the driver. RP responded that this question was likely to be one of standards setting, which, at the moment, the Law Commission saw as being set locally for taxis. It was subordinate to the question of structure.
1.100 Deborah Hunter (DH) questioned whether the prohibition on meters in PHVs in London was necessary. SW responded that PHVs had a different mode of operating whereby operators told the passenger the fare before travel. The use of a meter was linked to the driver having the Knowledge. DH felt that meter use was both in the interest of the travelling public and a useful management tool.
1.101 GR explained that the meter was used due to the vulnerability of a taxi passenger. DH did not believe that this was representative of the rest of the country.
1.102 DT noted that his company was working with a local authority to require both taxi and PHV drivers to take a topographical knowledge test, and that this represented a barrier to entry. The same area had capped the number of saloon car taxis, allowing only WAVs. He felt that meters could provide a useful form of identification for PHVs.
1.103 Sarah Wooller (SW) asked whether it was possible to have a quote per mile or only for the journey. SW responded that this was not possible where the operator had different price bands. Operators could also give discounts.
1.104 JB noted that none of the arguments made above went to the question of different legal status. If London was considered to work well there was an argument to use it as a model elsewhere. He did not believe that London differed from the rest of England and Wales in terms of the principles at play.
Scope
1.105 HG explained that the Law Commission was currently considering two options. One was a broad functional definition which would encapsulate vehicles such as limousines and pedicabs. The other was a definition which would be aligned with the requirement to hold a DVLA driving licence.
1.106 BO pointed out that the central issue was the lack of definition of plying for hire. It was important that there be consultation on a precise definition as it affected both taxis and PHVs.
Other issues
1.107 DoP asked whether the Law Commission was considering environmental issues. He felt that it was important that drivers have the freedom to choose a more environmentally friendly vehicle. RP responded that this would be looked at primarily in the context of externalities (that is, the environmental costs imposed by the trade) and standard setting. It was important that standard setting be done at the appropriate level. JU pointed out that the Law Commission was aware of concerns as to dead mileage, amongst other issues. VSH noted that this provided further links with the issue of public transport.
1.108 MB felt that there should be training for drivers but also for licensing and enforcement officers. The latter could be quality assured rather than regulated. He also felt that magistrates could have greater knowledge of matters relating to taxis and PHVs.
1.109 PC explained that in Manchester licensing officers had trained police on enforcement matters. BR noted that the latest Go Skills qualification had gone live on 16 November. He was in favour of a national driver’s licence comparable to that of a bus or HGV driver. The latter licences lasted far longer than a taxi or PHV driver’s licence.
1.110 TM was in favour of fixed penalty notices as they saved time and money for individuals, local authorities and the courts. They could also create revenue to be used in enforcement. JM noted that there was a danger that fixed penalty notices would be perceived as a revenue raising tool. He did not think fixed penalty notices were sufficiently severe to deal with touts.
DH raised the issue of the Measuring Instruments Directive. Although it had been given effect across Europe, she felt that it had been ignored in the UK. She felt that licensing officers wanted to be able to enforce it.
To read comments on these minutes/notes on the TDO forum click Cab Act 201? Section
