The Casey Column
By
Wayne Casey
(LL, SC)
The views expressed in this column are not those of the National Taxi Association
Doctors Orders
My near-death experience earlier this year has told me to lighten up, amongst that and you lot thinking that I’m a humourless so and so. So here we go with this month’s bit of humour. I thank one of my Scots golfing buddies, Joe Campbell, who liked Scotland so much he lives in England.
A little English boy is playing in the kitchen and he see’s his Scottish next door neighbour’s grandson Tam arrive. He goes to play with his friend.
‘Why you wearing a skirt?’ the English boy innocently asks his Scottish friend. ‘Och this is a kilt, all Scots wear kilts’ wee Tam explains.
Sniff ‘Giz a go’ says the English boy and wee Tam obliges.
With this the English boy puts on Tam’s kilt and goes back to his house to see his mother. “Mummy, look at me! I’m not a little English boy anymore I’m a little Scottish boy!”
WHACK! His mum slaps him around the head and says “You should be proud to be English, go and tell your Father what you just said!”
So the English boy, complete with sore cheek walks into the living room and says to his Father “Daddy look at me! I’m not an English boy anymore I’m a wee Scots boy!”
WHACK! His father smacks him on the other cheek, “You’re English, go tell your Gran what you just said!”
So the little English boy sobs his way into the garden and says to his Gran “Granny look at me! I’m Scottish! I’m Scottish!”
WHACK! His gran picks him up, smacks his bottom so that it’s red and asks him what he has to say for himself.
Standing there with swollen cheeks, clutching his tanned backside he says “I’ve only been Scottish 5 minutes and hate you English b*stards already!”
HELP! It’s the Hare Brained bunch
With the law commission looking towards changing taxi law and all manner of people and assorted whackos lining up to give their two’penneth, it would appear that yours truly is once again taking up the usual role as the seeker of truth and justice (I’ll use that title as Porky isn’t on the radio anymore).
You all know my thoughts, but I’ll reiterate them just to make myself crystal clear. I don’t think we need new taxi and private hire legislation. I think what I would like to see is the law currently on the statute books actually enforced by those who have the power. If they try it for a week, I think they would be amazed by the results.
The thought occurs we currently have perfectly good taxi and private hire law; it is, to all intents and purposes, seriously let down by those entrusted with enforcing it.
The most amusing thing about the whole debacle in this massive move towards newer taxi legislation is the fact that the very same people that are currently failing or more accurately, neglecting, to enforce the ‘old’ law, will actually be in charge of enforcing the new one. Worrying or what?
I have a number of concerns, and as you will be aware, given my parlous state considering the life-changing events of May 28th, worry is something I don’t particularly need. Personally, I’d rather be roaming Silloth on Solway golf course perfecting my usual brilliance than writing this article right now.
Are people, including certain so-called ‘taxi’ unions and the others that are supposed to be representing your best interests, seriously telling you that a local authority should have the power to fine a driver when that same local authority currently suspends drivers for one month for the grievous offence of ‘over-ranking’?
Are these same people suggesting that to be adequately funded, licensing departments need the power to ‘issue fines’ for misdemeanours?
A recent meeting, which the NTA didn’t attend due to a last minute illness, saw a few ideas mooted, the major majority of which had very little to do with new taxi law but more to do with the great and good being confused about the peripheries.
What do I mean by peripheries? Well, we have taxi and private hire law, which for the most part are the 1847 and 1976 acts. Then we have peripheries. It is not the fault of taxi law that the CRB service refuse to provide enhanced checks for driver applications. Neither is it the fault of taxi law that applications from foreign nationals seem to be causing increased concern.
Indeed, all/either act asks a local authority is to ensure the applicant is ‘fit and proper’, how they reach that conclusion is almost entirely down to the peripheries.
Section 57 of the 1976 act grants a local authority the power to require applicants to submit information including medicals. It doesn’t state what the information should be, or how arduous the medical requirement, this information is used to give the local authority a decent idea of the applicants fitness and propriety.
You see I’m confused here. It appears to me, and I hope you as well, that licensing an applicant should be a straightforward process in determining how fit and proper a person actually is. The local authority has every possible tool available, save for the obvious time machine where they can spin forward a few years and see how fit and proper the applicant turned out.
Equality issues are another periphery, a vital periphery, but a periphery no less. As you will all be aware, equality and taxis are included in the Equality act. Yet some of the hare-brained bunch seem to forget this, and want it enshrined into a new taxi law. For what purposes, I’m not too sure. I presume it’s to justify their position in the bunch. Of course, the one group that should be in the equality act, but aren’t, are private hire fleets.
Private Hire were initially included in the equality bill, yet they were specifically excluded from the act, how did those large PH fleets manage that particular get out?
Bearing in mind the majority of wheelchair bound customers phone up....rather than go to ranks or hail cabs.......why private hire were in the bill was understandable, how they were allowed to disappear from the actual act was unforgivable. This is worthy of examination at some point in the future.
Are either DPTAC or the law commission aware of the excessive charges some private hire companies charge for the carriage of wheelchairs? – certainly the equality commission are aware, a recent out of court settlement in Northern Ireland saw a private hire company pay substantial damages to a wheelchair bound passenger who paid more than an able bodied passenger.
So why does the proposed taxi legislation need consider accessibility? Surely the much coveted ‘accessibility’, which is something which has been kicked about for the best part of 30 years, is something that can be added to the equality act as soon as the great and good actually decide what constitutes ‘accessibility’?
You see, when I read someone from the law commission refers to this thing as a ‘project’ I really do get worried, because taxis are not a project, for many of us it’s a way of life. What startles me, although it shouldn’t, is the ignorance of some of the people involved. The National Taxi Association appears to be the lone voice calling for the retention of the status quo. The unfortunate aspect in so far as you are concerned is the NTA need of a mandate from those of you who are actually concerned. Now, more than ever, your membership is needed.
I am particularly surprised at some Cities; indeed any area that has either a hope or aspiration of gaining control of taxi numbers should be concerned. Liverpool is a case in point, although Manchester should be equally worried. Both cities have limited numbers policies, yet the current unease has created a situation where the value of taxi businesses has fallen by almost 50%. Everyone should be aware that the law commission are seriously looking at this whole thing with a “deregulatory objective”.
I have a really decent idea. When a local authority gets something it doesn’t know how to deal with, why don’t they simply phone me? It’ll be a hell of a lot cheaper than this law commission malarkey.
Till next month
Wayne Casey
Login
Register
FAQ
