|
Dear Double D I really can’t agree
I do understand and respect the position of our beloved editorial tag team duo, no, I really did write that. Indeed, my ego loves the titles being seemingly lavished upon me with wanton abandon, by this I do of course mean Leading Light, Star Columnist and Leader of the Carlisle massive. Unfortunately, I really cannot agree with their (Double D’s) position. I suppose when a person paraphrases someone else it really is a complement, therefore to the unknown out there I would add; “Be careful what you wish for, because it might come true” springs to mind.
The basic argument seems to stem around the current system of Butchers, Bakers & Candlestick makers making decisions about a trade, where, (as argued by double d), they don’t have any true interest or knowledge. Of course, it could be argued that the people who run the country don’t actually have any true knowledge or understanding, yet until such time as I run the country, in what I would explain away as ‘my benevolent dictatorship’, we are going to have to put up with democracy.
The references to “Young Wayne” in the last editorial do kind of explain, I am perhaps a little young and naive. For example, I’d like to see us build a shiny new aircraft carrier, one of those big American ones, not the tiny ones we build. That aside, and from personal dealings with many councillors and licensing officers over the years and in despite of disagreeing with both on numerous occasions, I must say the magazine is being unfair on the majority of both, who basically make decisions based on what is put before them and in what they consider to be the best interests of the public they are elected (or paid) to serve.
Certainly, and even in the modern day utopia of Carlisle, I disagree on occasion / frequently* (*delete as appropriate) with my own Council and its officials, but it doesn’t mean I don’t realise they sometimes have a bloody difficult job to do!
The question I would ask is; are the hackney trade walking blindfold towards something they don’t actually want.
I mean, if the average Joe on the street was to design a completely new licensing system, would he come up with the, arguably, god awful mess (from the public perception) we have now? Would average Joe limit licenses? Would Joe have any distinction between pre-booked and on demand taxis and PHV’s? I don’t need offer my own opinion to answer those questions do I? Sufficed to state the ideas mooted by Mr Button are obviously nearer the mark that many of us would wish to believe.
I know we are dealing with legislation that was designed for the horse and cart, I know in certain areas the horse and cart is a reasonably modern vehicle (but they are getting an age policy soon), I know we live in an age of the mobile phone and satellite communication to taxis. However, would any piece of new legislation, in respect of control of drivers and vehicles, go beyond what we basically have now?
If the 1847 act was scrapped, do you think in any new law legislators would control drivers via ancient byelaws? In all probability, we would have a blanket policy set in place for the whole country controlling drivers. This itself maybe a major issue, as many of you will realise, some places out there require DSA tests, BTEC’s and differing medical standards as a condition of any application, the question is, do the country raise the bar to those who consider themselves with the highest standards, or arguably lower them to those with the minimum?
The vehicle conditions would be rather more interesting, as touched upon in the last issue, some areas have policies where they will license only vehicles that comply with the metropolitan conditions of fitness (COF), where others allow saloon vehicles to be licensed taxis. There are damn good reasons these areas have differing policies too, although I’ll leave it to your over active imaginations as to why. Some areas have age policies which are quite stringent. How will a new act, a blanket policy satisfy the local requirements as they currently seem to do?
Obviously the main point of the editorial was the opinion that many seem to feel they have uneducated people making decisions about their profession, the example cited was Chester. The council there apparently collected funds for a survey through licensing fees and summarily decided to deregulate anyway, this isn’t the first time this has happened, if my memory serves me correct the taxi trade in Basildon were similarly sh*fted by their local authority.
Is it a case of councillors and licensing officers not understanding the issues, or is it a case of the cab trade being ill prepared, over complicated and unable to offer a decent defence in a professional manner. Certainly the trade in Chester believed they were safe, they had a mechanism in place that would seem to protect them from deregulation, yet for one reason or another the council decided against this, I wonder where that survey money will go now?
Indeed, it would seem the incumbent trade in Chester had at least one friend in the guise of Cheshire County Council's principal traffic engineer, Graham Lowe, who was quoted as saying "Existing problem of road users being obstructed by Hackney Carriages queuing to gain access to the ranks (45 daytime spaces in total) would be exacerbated if the existing restrictions were removed.".
I understand Chester are going to bring in what is seen as quality control, ‘with the requirement that new licences only be granted to applicants who propose to licence a new (at the time of registration) purpose built wheelchair accessible vehicle of a design and manufacture that is approved by the Licensing Authority.’ Again, it seems that while some council’s are against regulation of numbers, they don’t actually mind bringing in regulations that cost people more money.
I wonder why the local authority would make such a f*ck witted decision, this doesn’t exactly help my cause of telling you all that locals are best placed to decide. If they had a survey, which they didn’t need to find the money for because they’d been collecting it, they could have considered the results and made policy from there. Instead they make a decision based upon about zero without any actual idea if the service is going to improve.
Anyway, back to my flagging case. I have seen some of the defences against delimitation, these defences include quoting sections of acts, spelling mistakes and using reams of paper some of which come complete with coffee stains. I’m sorry people but we’re dealing with councillors, expecting a councillor to know chapter and verse of the 1847 act is a little like expecting you to understand the workings of nuclear physics, basically only a few of you will be fully conversant with the theories of Einstein.
I would suggest Wirral is an ideal example. The magazine has explained in previous issues that a recent survey has categorically proven the taxi operation is worse now than prior to deregulation and the previous survey, yet for whatever reason the trade is unable to persuade councillors the system in place has and continues to fail the public they are elected to serve. I don’t for one minute believe the councillors of the Wirral are as thick as pig-poo, although I suppose some of you will write in and tell me different, they know they have a duty to serve their electors, they know they should provide the best service possible to their public, yet despite of factual evidence, they categorically refuse to re-regulate.
The pro-regulation lobby should be pointing to the Wirral failure as all the right reasons not to deregulate, there have been very few examples of surveys of deregulated areas a few years after. The argument shouldn’t be about certain sections of acts, case-law, or who was to blame, but put into Jack and Jill type language and clichés with the intention of being actually understood in town halls. Yes I am being extremely condescending, but that’s how I see it.
Whilst Double D might say, yeah but they are making decisions that affect people’s lives they should know, again I would insist that they will only make a decision based upon what is in front of them and in language they understand, regrettably this may be a 5 second sound-bite as opposed to war and peace.
It seems to be a fairly obvious point, but more and more councils are going down the route of deregulation either because the trade on a national basis isn’t coming up with a truly viable alternative or they cant actually be bothered to run the taxi operation correctly. Sure, we have a few enlightened areas where the trade has achieved managed growth, but invariably these are areas where the trade has decent dialogue with councils and officers.
Deregulation isn’t seemingly an answer, it’s an admission of failure.
As I have stated in the past, both in writing and verbally to the editorial tag team, it seems to me that very few areas have any forward plan towards taxis. I maintain my belief that this is possible through the LTP. We seem to live in a trade where the whole thing can change from one moment to the next, due to a decision made by a local authority. I cant imagine Richard Branson being too chuffed if he bought himself a new set of shiny new aeroplanes only to be told he better get the exhausts sorted because the emissions are awful.
It is a tad difficult to come up with a business plan in a situation where policy may change on a monthly basis. As many licensing officers would also agree, things like permission for cab ranks invariably take up too much time due to multi agency involvement.
In reality, the lack of planning is a little like Eisenhower’s original plan for D Day, ‘Okay Boy’s there’s France, go get the b*stards’.
Despite the minus points on the current system, I don’t believe it needs changed, perhaps a little tinkering, but certainly not changed. We would be moving from tried and tested legislation to the unknown, and going towards the unknown isn’t something I want to see.
_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
|
Login
Register
FAQ
