Taxi Driver Online

Sorry my mistake I thought you was replying to something I wrote

Yes, I was

But not to me

I had a few sessions, [four altogether - 3 on Wednesday and 1 on Thursday] with the Law Commission team that attended the Coventry Taxi Exhibition at the Ricoh Arena and apparently during one of those sessions I was sitting with a group that amongst others included the Numero Uno guy from Delta in the Merseyside area. I didn’t know who he was and it didn’t faze me, although others that knew him commented on the fact.

The three that attended from the Law Commission were Richard Percival [Team manager, Public law team - RP], Jessica Uguccioni [Team lawyer, Public law team – JU] and Vindelyn Smith-Hillman [Economic adviser –VSM]. The Commissioner for this team is Frances Patterson QC who did not attend.

On Wednesday morning they all started very neatly behind a long table, almost akin to Catholic priests about to hear confessions during Lent with long queues of sinners waiting their turn with their declarations on the LCs publication, the multi-sinfulness of the HC and PH trades and in particular those dastardly mortal sinners know as licensing officers. But with the sheer volume of confessors clamouring for a chance to have their say, this orderly approach was soon abandoned by both RP and JU, as they joined the throngs of humble drivers, proprietors, PH operators, licensing officers and even taxi vehicle retailers, all wishing to have an input on the subject of reforming the law on taxi and private hire services.

Groups were formed from the chairs previously used as a waiting area and RP and JU took separate discussion groups of 3-10 people all day long with the clamour only dying down on Thursday afternoon at about 3.45pm as the exhibition was winding down. This was the only approach that they could take bearing in mind the volume of people wanting to speak to them.

The subjects tackled were manifold as you might expect.

Ranks and their absence from the LC’s consultation paper was a constant source of complaint, to which they answered that the original consultation paper was some 500 pages long and they had to dilute it, with ranks being excluded from the final draft. I said that at least they could have published the whole 500 pages online if not in paper format. There were numerous instances given about the positioning of ranks down side streets out of view of the public and one instance of just two rank spaces in a LA with 200 Hackneys.

There idea of part-time taxi licences for busy periods was copied from Victoria, Australia. That Australian system allows for a limitation on numbers of taxis, with the part-timers filling the void on Friday and Saturday nights, but not allowed to work even on a dispatch system at all other times of the week. My immediate though was again enforcement. The Australian method probably includes robust enforcement, the type of enforcement that will never happen here and with the ‘brothers’ not minded to object to transgressions during the week by their ‘brothers’ if such a system were to ever rear its ugly head here, this is definitely a non-starter.

There were many complaints about licensing officers and their idiosyncrasies from up and down the country. One of the LC team was in favour of colour policies, while the other was against. Democracy indeed within this LC team, but they need to get that one sorted so they are of one voice.

We also talked about SUD surveys and the LC’s concept about them was not what I was expecting. I was expecting that they were against these surveys as they are a means of limiting numbers. Not so. Their thinking is that they don’t understand the reasoning behind the whole concept of unmet demand, let alone significant unmet demand in the taxi service, which is what these surveys are commissioned to establish. They maintain that as with other forms of transport, buses, trains, planes, ships, there may be a need at times to wait for service. Why should the taxi service be an instant service and if it’s not instant, then there is an unmet demand? They did not understand this perception of instant, on the street, taxi availability as the SUD survey and the Transport Act 1985 allude to.

Limitation of numbers was also a very heavily subscribed topic. They are not against limitation of numbers, or so they say, but they have not heard convincing and compelling evidence yet as to the correct reasons for doing so. Traffic congestion may be a reason for looking at this subject, as also pollution may be. One taxi vehicle dealer brought up a very good reason why numbers should be limited which RP was very interested in hearing and made copious notes of. Something I too had not thought of in the long term. I’m sure this Holy Grail will be discussed much, much more during the consultation.

The pseudo-serfdom of PH drivers was brought up on a number of occasions and the employment status of these drivers too, the later not being part of their remit, which both RP and JU stated. They were however mildly interested in the working tax credits that more and more drivers appear to be claiming due to the low earnings within the trades.

National standards for vehicles were also discussed, but they admitted that the starting point for such a standard had yet to be established. They did however state, that the standard for PHVs whatever that will be, would be the maximum standard allowed for PHVs, but that maximum standard for PHVs would be the minimum standard for taxis. I just don’t understand that train of thought, as I believe the public have a right to the same standard of vehicle fitness throughout the land, whether that is a taxi or PHV.

The most contentious point by far though was that they believe there should be nothing wrong with a taxi / HC licensed in LA Z working in any LA in the country, provided that they only work on dispatch systems / PH circuits. Their thinking is that if vehicle and driver standards are the same throughout the land then, why would anybody wish to license vehicles other than in the LA they wished to work in? I explained that it was about working where the ‘honeypot’ is at weekends and licensing being a local thing. Even the taxi vehicle dealer took exception to this concept.

There was also some discussion about the PH knowledge test that some councils use and the LC’s belief that they should be scrapped. The general feeling was that they should be kept as some drivers have no clue as to where they are going.

There were many other topics discussed, but these were the main ones.

Is this panacea a secret?

now i am thick so bear with me why did you not have 1 in sted of 4.