Taxi Driver Online

No doubt readers (especially south of the border) have heard about the Labour Government's proposal to reorganise local government in England. This seemed to be mostly about amalgamating local authorities and creating more single-tier authorities (like we have in Scotland) rather than the current very messy set-up.

And precisely what's being proposed is, predictably, very messy as well. Not to mention, of course, how any amalgamations and super-authorities would impact on trade licensing.

However, there's a section of the white paper on 'taxi and private hire licensing' (as I'm always saying, when it comes to central government, the word 'taxi' means what it says on the tin, as opposed to the generic use of the word which seems to be the norm in local government).

And the section is quite brief, and obviously there's no substantive detail, other than that cross-border working would be one of the concerns addressed

But it says licensing would become the responsibility of Local or Strategic Transport Authorities. Quite what that would be, precisely, isn't clear. But obviously it's all about the trade being regulated by bodies with a substantially bigger footprint than the current council areas, and of course, such bodies would be more specialist in nature rather than under the umbrella of local authorities and their myriad functions. So maybe a bit closer to Transport for London than the average council in England currently responsible for trade licensing.

Anyway, the stuff in the white paper is quite brief, and really speaks for itself, so no point in banging on about it here, because there's not much in the way of substantive proposals, and of course there's not much meat about how these transport authorities would operate, and which areas they would cover.

But, suffice to say, they're no doubt about covering substantially bigger geographical areas, and probably a bit further away from the current set up of elected councillors and licensing committee members. (Which, of course, would have pros and cons.) On the other hand, in terms of 'economies of scale' and geographical 'footprint', they make it sound like some kind of Wolves-esque solution



Policy paper

English Devolution White Paper

Published 16 December 2024

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -framework

Taxi and Private Hire Vehicles

Taxis and private hire vehicles are an important part of our transport networks and some of the most vulnerable groups in our society rely on them. We recognise there are concerns about out-of-area working by private hire vehicles and are exploring how best to address these concerns. As part of this, we will consult on whether to make all Local Transport Authorities (including Strategic Authorities) responsible for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing.

Administering taxi and private hire vehicle licensing across this larger footprint would increase the consistency of standards and enable more effective use of enforcement powers across a whole functional economic area. Greater economies of scale should also enable authorities to improve the efficiency of licensing, reducing the incentives for people to license out of their usual working area. This would be a significant change for the sector, and we will work with stakeholders to understand possible impacts before taking a final decision. In London, taxi and private hire vehicle licensing is already the responsibility of the Mayor and Transport for London.

Actually came across that via TaxiPoint - this piece here might be worth reading, but not sure if they've just manage to puff out the Government's white paper a bit, but there's a bit more in terms of narrative, but can't really see anything that isn't in the extract from the white paper above


CROSS BORDER TARGETED: Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing set for MAJOR shake-up in devolution White Paper

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/cross ... devolution

Focus here seems to be on giving 'mayors' the powers of trade regulation

Not sure I really got that vibe from the brief stuff in the white paper, but I suppose that it's not incorrect, strictly speaking, especially considering that TfL is overseen by Mayor of London Sadiq Khan (soon to be Sir Sadiq, apparently ).

And most of the below will be familiar to those interested in this kind of stuff...


'Big step' in bid to ban Wolverhampton taxis in Greater Manchester

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... n-30608675

The government 'recognises' concerns about out-of-area taxis

Andy Burnham has hailed a 'big step forward' towards banning Wolverhampton taxis from operating in Greater Manchester.

The Greater Manchester mayor has welcomed news that the government will look at whether to give him responsibility over taxi licensing. In London, the mayor runs the taxi licensing regime, but currently outside of the capital this is the responsibility of councils.

The English Devolution White Paper unveiled on Monday (December 16) says that the government will consult on whether to give other mayors the same powers to address concerns over out-of-area taxis. The Manchester Evening News revealed this year that nearly 9,000 private hire drivers in Greater Manchester - around 35 per cent of the total - are licensed with Wolverhampton council.

The M.E.N. understands drivers register in Wolverhampton instead of the region they operate in because it is regarded as an easier, quicker and cheaper licensing regime - although the council denies this. The West Midlands authority isn't doing anything illegal.

But it's left some cabbies in Greater Manchester feeling angry - and councils here can't do anything about it. Councils have also raised concerns that they have no control over standards of taxis and drivers in their area if they are not in control of the licensing regime.

The government says it recognises there are concerns about out-of-area working by private hire vehicles. And in the White Paper published earlier this week, it promises to explore 'how best to address these concerns' by giving mayors power over taxi licensing.

Responding to the announcement, Mr Burnham said: "I know there'll be two cheers if not three cheers from the Greater Manchester taxi trade because this is a step forward for what they want and what we want as well. Out of area working creates worries for us in terms of standards, criminal records checks, etc. So public safety is a chief concern.

"But it also prevents us from limiting the sheer number of vehicles on our roads. In the city centre on weekends there's a large number of Wolverhampton licensed taxis and we're not able to control that.

"I think this is definitely quite a big step forward. I think we're heading towards an end of out of area working hopefully in the devolution bill that comes out of this White Paper but there's another hurdle to cross there with the consultation. But I'm confident we can get there."

The White Paper does not set out details of the consultation, but promises to 'work with stakeholders' to 'understand possible impacts' before taking a final decision. The document says: "Administering taxi and private hire vehicle licensing across this larger footprint would increase the consistency of standards and enable more effective use of enforcement powers across a whole functional economic area.

"Greater economies of scale should also enable authorities to improve the efficiency of licensing, reducing the incentives for people to license out of their usual working area. This would be a significant change for the sector, and we will work with stakeholders to understand possible impacts before taking a final decision."

I'm not surprised something is coming, but I haven't a clue exactly what.

Making/allowing councils to merge isn't exactly new, allowing councils to share the licensing function isn't exactly new.

The only new thing that will help the cross-border issue is to allow councils to limit the number of non-local PH vehicles, maybe along the lines that some councils are doing with hackneys via the 'predominantly working' condition.

_________________
IDFIMH

Given that this fella is very near the top of the Labour tree it's definitely worth watching what he says.

_________________
IDFIMH

Surely if we have a few very large local authorities then the cross-border situation would effectively go away! There's fewer borders to cross. Assuming where I live in Kent, the county takes over licencing from LAs of which there's about a dozen, then the border would be between Kent and Surrey, between Kent and East Sussex, and Kent and Khanistan.

Where I am at Ashford there's a problem with cars coming from the Romney Marsh, a very rural area (in the Folkeston LA), to Ashford (in the Ashford council). Dead mileage every time from Ashford back to the marsh, likewise with Ashford cars doing trips to the marsh having to go back empty. There could be a great saving on dead mileage in this area and maybe improve the cab service as a result. Plus of course the standardisation of standards.

There's no radio circuit that covers the marsh apart from 2 in Folkestone, some 15 miles from New Romney, and a couple in Ashford, also a 15 mile trip.

We already have huge areas that were previously single district councils. I think the plan is to allow elected Mayors of those areas to put in place rules preventing mass cross-border working. Quite how that happens is a question we would all like the answer to.

But we have to remember that most cross-border working or the most contentious cross-border working, is undertaken by vehicles and drivers not licensed in the next district or county, but by areas often 100s of miles away.

_________________
IDFIMH

An article on TaxiPoint website gives a view on what could happen.

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/how-c ... ensing-acr

_________________
IDFIMH

Unsurprisingly the article implies that one answer to this mess is to do things the London way.

The answer is most certainly not to follow 100% the London way, as this London way allows 100s, possibly 1000s of London PH to cross border in the areas outside of the M25, including large chucks of Essex and Gatwick airport.

_________________
IDFIMH

Had a quick skim of that, but looked like a rehash of what the white paper was saying, and what was said earlier in this thread

But, yes, TaxiPoint seems to take a very London-centric view of things all the time, and tries to apply London knowledge to what's going on elsewhere...

Another recent article is about a 'marked shift' towards dual badges as opposed to HC-only badges. But the article only gives the figure for one point in time, thus zero evidence of a 'marked shift'

And, for example, it seems to totally ignore the fact that probably most HC drivers outside of London are part of circuits...

The final paragraph maybe sums it up:


So where there's less street work, obviously there will be more pre-booked work.

But I don't really get the claimed dynamic of switching between HC/PH vehicles in those areas as and when the proportion of street/pre-booked work changes. Probably because the proportion doesn't really change

And there may well be more dual badges in less urban areas because councils see less need for an HC knowledge test, therefore no real need for separate HC/PH badges.

But I'd guess the proportion of HC to dual badges etc will depend on local licensing factors, rather than any sort of national trend...