Working in an area where numbers are not limited I am well aware of some of the more negative impacts of this. The question i would ask is if this is implemented would the government be willing to finance the increased costs of policing this or to compensate owners of taxis who would lose a lot of money as a result because I cannot see drivers taking this on the chin without sueing for compensation

8.32 Quantity controls also artificially increase barriers to entry for would-be taxi drivers who are unable to enter the sector. This contrasts with the private hire sector which has relatively low barriers to entry and no numerical restrictions. Most licensing authorities have removed quantity controls for taxis and, where they are in place, the danger of regulatory capture is significant. This is a distortion that can lead to adverse outcomes for both consumer and industry.

8.34 We also note that the current statutory criterion for imposing quantity controls, based on the concept of “unmet demand”, and the practice of carrying out specified surveys to support these are burdensome, costly and of doubtful utility.

Another schoolgirl error.

Quantity control has never been a barrier of entry for a would be taxi-driver.

Why?

OK, rather than go round the houses I'll assume you're alluding to the fact that driver numbers aren't limited?

However, non-plate-holding drivers either pay an inflated premium for a licence or an inflated rental for the same, thus a barrier to entry either way.

By the way, can't be bothered looking, but I take it then LC hasn't committed the schoolgirl error of using the misleading regulation/deregulation terminology

Well its reasonably obvious they failed to recognise the difference between a hackney carriage proprietors license, which in some areas are restricted in number, and hackney carriage drivers licenses, which arent restricted anywhere.

Of course, we'll allow that minor error, alongside the minor error with penalty points and driver sanctions from LO's who all have delegated powers, alongside the minor error of a missing £1 Billion, put that alongside the assumption based around tachnology acrtually changing the need for operator licensing, and of course their initial goal of reducing burdensome legislation....by suggesting those nasty wedding cars and funeral directors are licensed.

But apart from that....they're doing fine :lol

But strictly speaking the part you highlighted above isn't incorrect, as per the point I made earlier.

More generally I would agree with you however. But perhaps this is because they've been reading your column and indeed just about every pro-restricted number piece ever written, which fail to make the distinction you're now trying to highlight.

Thus OK when it suits?

And you're also unwittingly highlighting a major deficiency in the SUD survey methodology, again demonstrating that highlighting the driver/proprietor distinction is OK when it suits?

Well I'm inclined to agree with you from what I've seen so far, but I can't be bothered reading it all on screen and printing it out would cost a fortune.

But I was half expecting an OFT 2, and that looks like what it's shaping up to be.

a man of your money should be able to spend £38.50p on a shiny copy

Well I certainly wouldn't claim that, at least if you want to retain any credibility at all

Well I certainly wouldn't claim that, at least if you want to retain any credibility at all

didn't you apply for one free as a stake holder