Was expecting a slew of these articles about 'local experience and knowledge' or whatever...
And it started pretty much as expected, and pretty cringeworthy, although vaguely amusing in a way
But I gradually started losing the will to live as it went on, and especially in view of the fact that this council is up to its neck in cross-bordering. Albeit it that it's very local cross-bordering in the main, because effectively this council covers part of greater Bristol, correct me if I'm wrong, thus a lot of South Glocs cars working in the city area?
So to that extent the cross-border angle isn't the fault of the council or councillors. But the self-regard here is off the scale, and definite echoes of Wolverhampton
Don't have time to go through some of the individual points at the moment, but I need a lie down anyway
Proposed taxi licensing reforms 'could threaten public safety' warn South Gloucestershire councillors
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bris ... d-10895853
The Department for Transport has proposed major reforms
Proposed changes to how taxi licences are granted would be a ‘disaster’ for public safety in South Gloucestershire, councillors warn.
The Department for Transport has been asking for feedback on the reforms, which could involve mandatory CCTV in cabs and a fundamental handover of responsibility for overseeing the trade from district and unitary councils to local transport authorities, such as the West of England Combined Authority (Weca).
But cross-party members on South Gloucestershire Council regulatory committee voiced their dismay over the plans because the outcome could be losing vital local knowledge and experience from decisions on issuing hackney carriage and private hire vehicle and driver licences, endangering passenger safety.
One of the biggest flaws with the current regime, which dates back to the 19th century, is that operators and cabbies can undertake journeys outside the area where they are licensed, which has led to significant ‘out-of-area working’ where they mostly ply their trade elsewhere.
It means they can apply to any authority with lower costs, more lenient rules, and faster processes, but are not obliged to stay there.
A report to the regulatory committee said this created enforcement issues because only the council that issued a licence could suspend or revoke it.
Cllr Paul Hughes (Conservative, Bitton & Oldland Common) told the meeting on Thursday, March 26: “If drivers appeal, the process could last for years with them continuing to operate while that goes through the system.
“They could be driving around with the Sword of Damocles over their head, and this is going to be a negative regarding the travelling public who we as a council have protected over the years.
“It really concerns me. People need to be assured when they get into one of South Gloucestershire’s hackney carriages or private hire vehicles that they are safe, the driver is safe, there will be no malarkeying.
“If that goes, it’s a disaster for this area.”
Cllr Sanjay Shambhu (Conservative, Charlton & Cribbs) said: “I am against this proposal.
“It centralises decision-making and takes it away from local decisions.
“It is counterproductive to everything this council has achieved under this administration and over the last 10 years so I am strongly against this.”
Cllr John Bradbury ( Labour, Bradley Stoke South) said: “I’m rather struck by the idea that we have local control over our taxis and we should keep that local control.
“If we lose all of that control to a bigger authority, we lose a significant amount of revenue, and that money would go to Weca.
“We would lose our experienced licensing officers and enforcement staff who would transfer to a local transport authority.
“We should keep it local.”
Cllr Keith Cranney (Conservative, Stoke Gifford) said responsibility for licensing cabs came to the council to relieve the burden on magistrates courts.
He said: “We’ve done it well. As an authority here in South Glos we’ve always been ahead of the game.
“We brought in mandatory safeguarding, and our drivers today are going through that.
“We as panels ensure the safety of the travelling public.
“We’re all doing a good job as councillors, and this is one of the last bastions of working in a local authority where you make the decisions.
“Officers give guidance, you make the decisions.
“Are you making the wrong decisions? I don’t think so.”
Cllr Ben Stokes (Conservative, Boyd Valley) said: “Public safety is the primary concern.
“The Casey Report has identified there are complications around enforcement issues in having a patchwork of local authority jurisdictions and things slipping through the net.
“I’m not seeing that here in South Gloucestershire or that they outweigh the merits of what we are able to deliver here, particularly when we consider the fact that if there are likely to be longer delays, it will mean that potential perpetrators, dangerous drivers, drivers who are really not suitable, are putting the public at risk.
“Our system works efficiently, we give a fair hearing, and this would only delay the passage of justice if this goes through a more complex system.
“So until we see more evidence of a better plan, it would be very remiss to endorse this consultation.”
Cllr Chris Davies (Lib Dem, Thornbury ) said: “Our system locally seems to work pretty well, and if it’s not working nationally, it seems odd we’re being drawn into this.
“We ought to make our point that whatever the problem is elsewhere, it’s not affecting here.”
The DfT’s consultation began on January 8 and ends on Wednesday, April 1.
Its findings will be published later this year.
