Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

deregulation bill ammendment 61
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=24611		 Page 2 of 3
Author:  Chris the Fish [ Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: deregulation bill ammendment 61
By the way, several LA's are considering using this if it goes through, to stop PH using bus lanes as they can't guarantee the driver is entitled to be in them. Plymouth is aware but as currently unaffected, need take no early action in this regard.
Author:  grandad [ Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: deregulation bill ammendment 61
Chris the Fish wrote:
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?

I like all 3 clauses because it should make licenses cheaper for me and take away some of the endless form filling. It will also mean that if I need to sub contract a job to another company outside my area due to a breakdown or other problem, I will be able to do it. It will also mean that if I need to take a car for a service or testing then I wont have to take a licensed driver off work to do it.
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: deregulation bill ammendment 61
Chris the Fish wrote:
My letter to James Padden when all this started - as far as I am concerned my points hold good.

In respect of (i) your points might carry weight if what you are saying didn't already apply to firms passing on work to hackney carriage firms. Why are you not lobbying to end such a rule, or are you only concerned about PH passing work onto another PH firm? In your world is a hackney firm passing work onto another hackney firm, or even passing work onto another PH firm fine, but not PH on to PH?

In respect of (ii) the vast majority, if not all, of crimes against punters are undertaken by licensed drivers in licensed vehicles, or unlicensed drivers in unlicensed vehicles, you tell me what % of attacks are undertaken by unlicensed drivers in licensed vehicles? Tell me if the system was so bad prior to Benson-v-Boyce? And how it improved so much after that case.

I also go back to what the GMB sent to the Law Commission, before they forgot what they sent and changed their mind.

Law Commission Provisional proposal 20:
Leisure and non-professional use of taxis and private hire vehicles should be permitted. There would however be a presumption that the vehicle is being used for professional purposes at any time unless the contrary can be proved.

GMB Union Answer: 20
Agreed. Restricting eligibility of only licensed drivers being allowed to drive a taxi or private hire vehicle is not required. There are many reasons adopt the Metropolitan view including the use of such vehicles being driven by mechanics and such like.

In respect of (iii) I have a little bit of sympathy with that in terms of effect it might have on enforcement activities. But in general term this will save drivers money, so it's really hard to fight against, IMO. In the debate today the minister said 50,000 vehicles in London, and 50% of all taxi and PH outside of London operate this way. Have they all got it wrong?

And in respect of (i) (ii) and (iii) I struggle to counter the argument that London already operates that way. Now I'm not saying London PH are the beacon that we should all aspire too, but tell me or show me where those rules have had a detrimental effect on safety in London?
Author:  captain cab [ Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: deregulation bill ammendment 61
grandad wrote:
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>


and you think that will actually happen? :lol:
Author:  grandad [ Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: deregulation bill ammendment 61
captain cab wrote:
grandad wrote:
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>


and you think that will actually happen? :lol:

I can dream for a while. :mrgreen:
Author:  Chris the Fish [ Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: deregulation bill ammendment 61
Sussex,
Personally I think Hackney Firms should operate in the same way as PH firms. That to include licensing of the firm, but it was not on the table.
I would support the sub-contracting if the sub-contractor ended up with the responsibility, but that is not in there.

Obviously I can’t tell you the percentage of un-licenced drivers in licenced vehicles, first, it is not currently allowed, second, I don’t suppose anyone has the figures, third, I felt I made plain that the opportunity will offer the potential offender the means.

Fuel is a legitimate outgoing, but not when used for the family shopping. Bus Lanes WILL be abused, to be honest I would consider it myself. Insurance will also often be “missing” for the un-licenced driver.

I do not agree with the GMB stance, so I don’t intend fighting their corner. That said, bona-fide mechanics on road tests are, in most LA’s, already covered.

Finally, “London do it” is not a good argument, I would counter that “London should not be allowed to continue doing it”. The problems are huge in the PH trade in London, after the rape, is too late to amend things. Horses, doors and stables.

Grandad has some good points, but none of them outweigh the potential drawbacks.
Author:  toots [ Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: deregulation bill ammendment 61
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-[


Quite right, I thought they were out :oops: I'm starting look like a seal taking my clapping back :roll:
Author:  captain cab [ Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: deregulation bill ammendment 61
This is the road to hell - at least the Law Commission (for their many faults) did actually consider national Standards and licensing officers being able to stop vehicles from outside boroughs.

There will be a nationwide search for the PH fleet with the lowest standards - nobody will know who's driving the vehicle (wife, family, serial killer/rapist) because it isn't licensed there anyway.

And the minimum periods for licenses will create turmoil in licensing regimes - with - like it or not - licenses trebling in price - because (like it or not) - licensing authorities do charge for things they shouldn't - and if you don't like it - ask for the accounts - grandad has had every success with his afterall :wink:
Author:  grandad [ Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: deregulation bill ammendment 61
the deregulation bill has just had it's 3rd reading the vote was 190 to 6 so it now passes to the lords.
Author:  Chris the Fish [ Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: deregulation bill ammendment 61
toots wrote:
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-[


Quite right, I thought they were out :oops: I'm starting look like a seal taking my clapping back :roll:



Can I reduce the bill by 1 Trout (I mean Toots).
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: deregulation bill ammendment 61
Chris the Fish wrote:
Sussex,
Personally I think Hackney Firms should operate in the same way as PH firms. That to include licensing of the firm, but it was not on the table.
I would support the sub-contracting if the sub-contractor ended up with the responsibility, but that is not in there.

I understand that, and you might have a point. However the national cab trade haven't addresses that issue, and that's one of reasons the ministers haven't moved one single inch away from what they originally proposed.
Author:  captain cab [ Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: deregulation bill ammendment 61
Sussex wrote:
Chris the Fish wrote:
Sussex,
Personally I think Hackney Firms should operate in the same way as PH firms. That to include licensing of the firm, but it was not on the table.
I would support the sub-contracting if the sub-contractor ended up with the responsibility, but that is not in there.

I understand that, and you might have a point. However the national cab trade haven't addresses that issue, and that's one of reasons the ministers haven't moved one single inch away from what they originally proposed.


Are you suggesting the government don't know about the issues surrounding out of town hackney carriages and the problems councils have with funding licensing departments after the hemmings judgement?

I mean if you were its almost as if the government weren't made aware of the issues by the lady who has now been moved and the likes of the minister who was told first hand - thought we were telling fibs
Author:  captain cab [ Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: deregulation bill ammendment 61
mind you sussex - when the cab trade is basically run by folk who haven't got a f*cking clue - its no wonder these things happen (NTA excluded obviously).
Author:  toots [ Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: deregulation bill ammendment 61
Chris the Fish wrote:
Can I reduce the bill by 1 Trout (I mean Toots).


You could have, but, you can't now :lol: :lol:
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: deregulation bill ammendment 61
captain cab wrote:
Are you suggesting the government don't know about the issues surrounding out of town hackney carriages and the problems councils have with funding licensing departments after the hemmings judgement?

I mean if you were its almost as if the government weren't made aware of the issues by the lady who has now been moved and the likes of the minister who was told first hand - thought we were telling fibs

But none of that really applies to the Dereg Bill, it's a discussion to be had with the Law Commission.
Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/