|
A tale of two cities (2/3/2006)
Two of Scotland’s major cities demonstrate radically different approaches to debate and policy – while Aberdeen’s council has recently derestricted taxi numbers following remarkably in-depth policy documents, the City of Edinburgh Council’s position remains mired in obfuscation and double standards.
A lengthy document produced by Aberdeen City Council last summer demonstrated one apparent quirk in the city’s licensing rules: it seems that renting vehicles (and plates) to drivers is not allowed under the taxi code, which seems unusual in UK terms at least – although there are of course many genuine owner-drivers in cities like Liverpool, Manchester, Brighton, Edinburgh and Dundee, it’s probably true to say that the majority of taxi drivers in these cities do not own the taxis they drive, and pay some sort of rental/split bag for its use whether or not the owner also drives as well – two or more drivers per vehicle is commonplace in these cities.
The report also considered the issue of hiring plates per se (ie the plate holder neither owns nor operates the vehicle), which was of course highlighted in Dundee a couple of years before. However, what distinguishes the Aberdeen document is the depth of the discussion on these and other matters, including (for example) extensive histories regarding the various issues, in-depth discussion on the legislation and relevant case law and several supporting documents as appendixes.
Also noticeable was the frankness with which the report dealt with some of the issues. For example, in relation to drivers preferring not to run a vehicle: “…some drivers do not wish the Inland Revenue or Benefits Agency to become aware that they are receiving a cash income as a self-employed taxi driver.”
Another example: the document reports the earlier concerns of trade members and police regarding absentee plate holders who had no involvement with the vehicle at all and were possibly “sitting on a beach abroad” collecting a cheque from home.
Another interesting point is that the advice of counsel suggested that a permanent mixed fleet of saloon and wheelchair accessible vehicles would not withstand a legal challenge by those compelled to operate the latter. It was also rightly pointed out that these ‘two-tier’ conditions were perpetuating the hiring of plates – a point borne out by different plate resale values in mixed fleet locations like Brighton (numbers overall restricted, thus higher plate values for saloons) and Gateshead (only saloons limited, thus only these plates have a resale value).
The council’s later derestriction document from earlier this year also places a surprising (but welcome) reliance on Department for Transport guidance on restricting taxi numbers, and also makes the following statement regarding a Scottish Executive review of the licensing legislation: “The members of the Task Group appear to be heavily weighted towards representative of the taxi trade within the central belt where most authorities have limits on taxi numbers.”
Which brings us to Edinburgh. Of course, our opposition to restricted numbers should go without saying, and to that extent Edinburgh is unremarkable. But in the past we’ve highlighted Edinburgh’s rather dubious scheme to facilitate the effective transfer of plates, which has seen licenses intended to be unsaleable instead become worth a collective £50 million or so. Also highlighted recently by a handful of apparently fearless individuals in the Scottish capital was the rather flawed nature of the demand survey required to maintain restricted numbers, not to mention several court cases necessitated after the council failed to survey with sufficient frequency, and then effectively tried to move the goal posts by applying for an extension before considering applications for licenses in order that a more adequate (sic!) survey could be undertaken. Of course, restricted numbers is characterised by double standards anyway, but the council’s earlier attempts to ‘dumb down’ the city’s knowledge test to assist in the recruitment of new drivers while at the same time questioning the need for new vehicle licenses merely underlines the hypocrisy.
Thus, a tale of two cities; in one we find technical depth, honesty and an ultimately equitable solution, in the other merely skulduggery, hypocrisy and exploitation.
But, irrespective of the various legal and other arguments surrounding the issues, all these problems arise from the essentially discriminatory and parasitic nature of restricting taxi numbers or affording some owners advantageous terms with regard to vehicle types. The undesirability of these scenarios may be neatly encapsulated in everyday maxims like ‘one rule for some and another rule for others’, and the converse in the need for a ‘level playing field’, but paying heed to these simple rules of conduct would have prevented many of the taxi industry’s problems.
_________________ Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk
|
Login
Register
FAQ
