Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Tue Nov 19, 2019 6:57 am

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:27 pm
Posts: 17858
Amendment 61 which would have removed the clauses relating to taxis and private hire has just been defeated in the commons at the report stage. by 208 to 285.

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:22 pm
Posts: 14142
Location: On the move
grandad wrote:
Amendment 61 which would have removed the clauses relating to taxis and private hire has just been defeated in the commons at the report stage. by 208 to 285.


As it should be =D>

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:25 pm
Posts: 36950
Location: Wayneistan
grandad wrote:
Amendment 61 which would have removed the clauses relating to taxis and private hire has just been defeated in the commons at the report stage. by 208 to 285.


so the changes stand?

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 3144
Location: Plymouth
grandad wrote:
Amendment 61 which would have removed the clauses relating to taxis and private hire has just been defeated in the commons at the report stage. by 208 to 285.

Sorry Grandad, your statement is a bit ambiguous - has the amendment failed so the clauses stay in - or are the Taxi clauses out?
My reading of what you put says they stay in, Toots seems to think they are out, I think.
CC seems confused as well, so it is not just me. 8-[

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:25 pm
Posts: 36950
Location: Wayneistan
Chris the Fish wrote:
grandad wrote:
Amendment 61 which would have removed the clauses relating to taxis and private hire has just been defeated in the commons at the report stage. by 208 to 285.

Sorry Grandad, your statement is a bit ambiguous - has the amendment failed so the clauses stay in - or are the Taxi clauses out?
My reading of what you put says they stay in, Toots seems to think they are out, I think.
CC seems confused as well, so it is not just me. 8-[


I only added a question mark, I know what I think?

:lol:

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:27 pm
Posts: 17858
Chris the Fish wrote:
grandad wrote:
Amendment 61 which would have removed the clauses relating to taxis and private hire has just been defeated in the commons at the report stage. by 208 to 285.

Sorry Grandad, your statement is a bit ambiguous - has the amendment failed so the clauses stay in - or are the Taxi clauses out?
My reading of what you put says they stay in, Toots seems to think they are out, I think.
CC seems confused as well, so it is not just me. 8-[

The amendment which would have removed the clauses was defeated so that means they stay in.

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 3144
Location: Plymouth
grandad wrote:
The amendment which would have removed the clauses was defeated so that means they stay in.

Right, time now to Lobby the Lords!

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 43966
Location: 1066 Country
Chris the Fish wrote:
grandad wrote:
The amendment which would have removed the clauses was defeated so that means they stay in.

Right, time now to Lobby the Lords!

Which bits do you dislike and why?

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:27 pm
Posts: 17858
Chris the Fish wrote:
grandad wrote:
The amendment which would have removed the clauses was defeated so that means they stay in.

Right, time now to Lobby the Lords!

Ah, but I am for the new clauses so I will have to lobby the Lords to vote it through.

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 43966
Location: 1066 Country
grandad wrote:
Chris the Fish wrote:
grandad wrote:
The amendment which would have removed the clauses was defeated so that means they stay in.

Right, time now to Lobby the Lords!

Ah, but I am for the new clauses so I will have to lobby the Lords to vote it through.

On balance I'm with you.

And I think the national cab trade (save the Captain) have made an almighty balls up and really haven't got a f***ing clue what they are doing, and why they are doing it.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 43966
Location: 1066 Country
grandad wrote:
Amendment 61 which would have removed the clauses relating to taxis and private hire has just been defeated in the commons at the report stage. by 208 to 285.

Not sure how long it will stay on this link, maybe for good, but it's worth a read.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... known/207/

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 3144
Location: Plymouth
Sussex wrote:
Which bits do you dislike and why?

My reply covering my reasons will be on here shortly.

By the way, it will not affect Plymouth anyway, the 1976 MPA is amended, the 1975 PCCA is not.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 3144
Location: Plymouth
Sussex wrote:
Which bits do you dislike and why?

My letter to James Padden when all this started - as far as I am concerned my points hold good.

Quote:

Dear Sir,
I had hoped to be able respond to you in my capacity as Secretary of Region 8, National Taxi Association. The unrealistic timescale imposed makes this impossible so this is by necessity to be considered as a strictly personal response. The Law Commission in their wide ranging review recognised this and extended their intended three month consultation to four months. Yours Sir, by the time I had your letter, allowed about three weeks. I will take some convincing that this all along was not the intention of your Office. Members of R8 NTA have not had anything like the time needed to consult their Local Associations, formulate their own positions and pass the results to me for collation and despatch.

I do heartily agree with the response which has already been submitted by Plymouth Licensed Taxi Association. Further I can say that the Local Association in Exeter fully endorse the positions held by Plymouth. Bournemouth Association is particularly keen that the “Insurance” position is fully addressed, they still await advice on this area. I still await the rest of R8 getting their positions to me at all, it is obvious that they have missed the ridiculously short deadline as has been set by the DfT.

Whilst I can understand that removal of “Red Tape” is usually a good thing, the three measures added to this prospective Bill actually remove none, the extension of the life of various Licences reduce some Red Tape, but in such a way that increases the potential dangers to the travelling public.

With regard to (i), I envisage:

a. “Operators” setting up a business that actually have no Drivers working directly for them, why should they, for doing nothing other than pass on bookings, they can charge a fee.
b. Licenced Operators need not fulfil bookings received from “out of area”, the “Operator” taking the booking bears responsibility. A potential hazard for the travelling public then exists. They could be stranded at any time thinking a PH car is coming when it is not.
c. If the measure is introduced, Taxi Offices which currently need no Licence should be able to operate in the same way. I wonder if in reducing Red Tape, you actually intend creating some, by forcing a Licensing regime on a group currently not requiring a Licence?

With regard to (ii) I envisage:

a. Massive abuse will occur and will be impossible to Police.
i. The Partner or family of the PH Driver will not be Safety Vetted by way of DBS or similar.
ii. In Towns or Cities which allow PH access of Bus Lanes it will be impossible to determine whether a PH Vehicle should be allowed this privilege or not, it would be dependent on who is driving at the time. Indeed I would go further and point out that a proprietor may “PH Plate” a vehicle, decide not to rent it to a working PH Driver and drive it themselves, saving all that queuing in traffic when the Bus Lane is available. I know that this is already an occasional abuse that happens but this measure will open the floodgates.
iii. The temptation to “Ply for Hire” will always be there for Unlicensed Drivers in Licenced vehicles – it happens now, but at least the Driver has been DBS checked, even if it is illegal.
iv. When used for “Family Duty” should another fuel tank be used? The claim that all fuel used in the vehicle is for work will consistently be made.
v. Police using NPR cameras will always see the vehicle as insured, the Local Authority issuing will check that – after accidents when non-licenced drivers are found in charge of the vehicle will be the only time that lack of correct insurance is discovered.

With regard to (iii) it should be kept in mind:

a. The One Year probationary licence is a good idea and should be retained – it allows drivers to gain VRQ or similar whilst working for example.
b. Local Authorities have the power to “Suspend, Revoke or Refuse to Renew” a Licence. If at the end of the probationary year the Driver is not suitable, a “Refuse to Renew” opportunity is available.
c. If the idea is to cut red tape, why stop at three years – surely a lifetime licence would cut even more! The Local Authority would still have the facilities available to them to “Suspend or Revoke”.
d. The biggest winners in the proposals are the operators – this is academic anyway, any costs that they incur are simply passed on to drivers in raised Radio or Office Rents.

I find it particularly galling that by adding these measures to the Bill in progress, the Committee stage of the potential Act has already passed. The Chance for the NTA, Region 8 NTA, Plymouth Licensed Taxi Association, other Local Associations, Unions, Local Councillors and last but not least individual Drivers in both trades, have missed their chance to lobby their own MP’s and the MP’s making up the Committee. I will endeavour to get various Local Associations and individual Drivers to attempt to do so anyway, despite the underhand way due to lack of time you have provided, democracy may yet still prevail.

I sincerely hope that no one, Driver or Passenger, suffers as a direct result of these measures becoming Law “at the rush”. I console myself with the thought that when the Law Commissions proposals in full and not piecemeal are eventually debated and voted on by Members in both Houses of Parliament, they will have the chance at leisure, and fully briefed by lobbying, to correct the errors now being made in a rush.

End Quote.

Sussex, which bits do you like, and why?

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:27 pm
Posts: 17858
Chris the Fish wrote:
Sussex wrote:
Which bits do you dislike and why?

My reply covering my reasons will be on here shortly.

By the way, it will not affect Plymouth anyway, the 1976 MPA is amended, the 1975 PCCA is not.

Ah but when the new bill that has been proposed by the law commission comes into force it WILL include Plymouth and London. =D> =D> =D>

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 3144
Location: Plymouth
Then it will include Hackney Carriages, re-named "Taxis", can also be driven by un-licenced drivers - except by the time it comes to Parliament they will already be regretting letting the un-licenced drive PH, so there will be amendments.

Which bits do you like, and why?

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group