| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| OFT reaction http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=161 |
Page 5 of 7 |
| Author: | Guest [ Tue Dec 09, 2003 3:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Alex wrote: Or that's the word of the day, or.
 Alex Alex you are so stubborn, primary legislation is a definate path, its only RRA thats under consideration. but the path has changed cos oft was brought in, wonder if Bryan Rowlands has seen how weve been had |
|
| Author: | Guest [ Tue Dec 09, 2003 5:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
So now we have the volumes from OFT, We can study what is to be, is it open access for all, so the new boys can have a ball. What is the method of change, will it be a bill, or regulation to rearrange, The betting is on a new bill, unless all is ignored oh what a thrill, history is littered with what might have been, where exponents of change were so green, it look like we could have that repeat, where the present arangements cannot be beet, we all take a look into the crystal ball, to see what will happen if we can recall, but in the scale of things is it a big deal, is change definate and for real? as soon as the turkey has gone cold, this whole issue will look old, so those on here can huff and puff, while thoose who want change can cut up rough, Paddington Bill. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Tue Dec 09, 2003 7:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Anonymous wrote: but the path has changed cos oft was brought in, wonder if Bryan Rowlands has seen how weve been had
I don't think OFT were brought in, they invited themselves to the party. Looking at what was coming out of the Scottish Task Force i.e. instead of removing quotas from HCs, adding them to the PH trade. I for one am glad they did stick their hooters in. If we have been had, then so be it. But until I see proper evidence of such, then I for one don't think I have. If the DfT just accept the three main reccommendations, then in my particular area, that will do nicely for starts. I know it's different in other manors, but in mine, bring it on. |
|
| Author: | Andy7 [ Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Bring it on here too. |
|
| Author: | Dusty Bin [ Wed Dec 10, 2003 12:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Anonymous wrote: read the bloody page for gods sake last colomn, method RRO under consideration or primary legislation! if only you would read the small print binnie. Wharfie Yes, I've read the small print Wharfy, and thought you might mention what you did, but I was a bit rushed at the time, so I didn't mention it. But you said: "cannot be done by order I do believe. if yo take a butchers at the RRA action plan it concedes this point." How can you possibly say that it concedes that it can't be done by RRO? The Action Plan says that the method of change could either be an RRO or primary legislation. How can you read this as saying that the Action Plan concedes that it can't be done by RRO? It can be done by primary legislation, that much is obvious, but I think the presumption should be that unless it specifically says otherwise in the Action Plan that it can't be done by RRO then the presumption should be that it can? Surely? Anyway, the OFT report says at para 7.13: "The Government's Action Plan 2002 contains a number of proposals to use the streamlined order-making procedure in the RRA to amend burdensome primary legislation. The DfT have put forward four actions affecting taxi and PHV regulation for completion by Regulatory Reform Order: And you know the rest! And I think the OFT will be better appraised of the position on this issue than you or I. Dusty 
|
|
| Author: | Guest [ Wed Dec 10, 2003 12:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex Man wrote: Anonymous wrote: but the path has changed cos oft was brought in, wonder if Bryan Rowlands has seen how weve been had I don't think OFT were brought in, they invited themselves to the party. Looking at what was coming out of the Scottish Task Force i.e. instead of removing quotas from HCs, adding them to the PH trade. I for one am glad they did stick their hooters in. If we have been had, then so be it. But until I see proper evidence of such, then I for one don't think I have. If the DfT just accept the three main reccommendations, then in my particular area, that will do nicely for starts. I know it's different in other manors, but in mine, bring it on. no they didnt they have no pwer to do that, they were brought in. |
|
| Author: | Guest [ Wed Dec 10, 2003 12:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dusty Bin wrote: Anonymous wrote: read the bloody page for gods sake last colomn, method RRO under consideration or primary legislation! if only you would read the small print binnie. Wharfie Yes, I've read the small print Wharfy, and thought you might mention what you did, but I was a bit rushed at the time, so I didn't mention it. But you said: "cannot be done by order I do believe. if yo take a butchers at the RRA action plan it concedes this point." How can you possibly say that it concedes that it can't be done by RRO? The Action Plan says that the method of change could either be an RRO or primary legislation. How can you read this as saying that the Action Plan concedes that it can't be done by RRO? It can be done by primary legislation, that much is obvious, but I think the presumption should be that unless it specifically says otherwise in the Action Plan that it can't be done by RRO then the presumption should be that it can? Surely? Anyway, the OFT report says at para 7.13: "The Government's Action Plan 2002 contains a number of proposals to use the streamlined order-making procedure in the RRA to amend burdensome primary legislation. The DfT have put forward four actions affecting taxi and PHV regulation for completion by Regulatory Reform Order: And you know the rest! And I think the OFT will be better appraised of the position on this issue than you or I. Dusty no it does not say that Dusty, it says RRA will be considered, that means if iy will do the trick, you are spinning out of control, put this rubbish of yours in the bin. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
But why would the government bother putting the four points in the RRA if they aren't going to bother acting on it. If they wanted to solely persue them by primary legislation, then they needn't have bothered with a RRO. To me the way the OFT study is written, and the way the recommendations are phrased, and the ommission of many important issues in the report, points very much in the direction of a RRO. |
|
| Author: | Dusty Bin [ Wed Dec 10, 2003 5:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Andy, this presumably means that we're both spinning out of control! Dusty
|
|
| Author: | Dusty Bin [ Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I doubt if the OFT could be any clearer when they say: "The DfT have put forward four actions affecting taxi and PHV regulation for completion by Regulatory Reform Order." Dusty PS Incidentally, does anyone know a way to copy and paste from .pdf documents - the only way I can manage it is to paste the whole lot into a Word document and copy the selected text from there to wherever I want to put it, such as on here. The root of the problem is that I can't select a piece of text on a .pdf document, it's the whole lot or nothing.
|
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I would e-mail the banana man, if he doesn't know then no-one will. |
|
| Author: | Guest [ Sun Feb 01, 2004 7:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dusty Bin wrote: The Dept of Transport recommended de-restriction in a circular years ago, and almost half of LAs still restrict. Dusty What was the circular reference number? I've never seen any circular from the Ministry of Transport advising that councils deregulate numbers and I've read them all. In fact the advice with regard to Taxi numbers has been limited to two circulars both of which outline the legal position concerning surveys and appeals. Best wishes John Davis Manchester |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sun Feb 01, 2004 8:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think they where the circulars that accompanied the 1985 Act. |
|
| Author: | Dusty Bin [ Sun Feb 01, 2004 8:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
John, my use of the word 'recommend' perhaps over egged the pudding a bit, but the circular was mentioned in the OFT report, which said that the Department 'suggested' lifting restrictions. Para 4.78 OFT states: "In 1985 the Department of Transport, the Scottish Development Department and the Welsh Office suggested 91 that LAs should consider lifting quantity restrictions." The accompanying footnote 91 states: In a 4 December 1985 joint circular on the Transport Act 1985, the Department of Transport, the Scottish Development Department and the Welsh Office stated: ‘District councils may wish to review their policy on the control of taxi numbers in the light of [section 16 Transport Act 1985]. Limitation of taxi numbers can have many undesirable effects – an insufficiency of taxis, either generally or at particular times or in particular places; insufficient competition between the providers of taxi services, to the detriment of their customers; and prices for the transfer of taxi licences from one person to another which imply an artificial restriction of supply.’ Circular3/85 Department of Transport, Circular 32/85 Scottish Development Department, Circular 64/85 Welsh Office, paragraph 27. I don't think that the Transport Act amendment has put a stop to the 'undesriable' effects outlined in the Circular. Presumably this culminated in the RRA proposal a couple of years ago - the message would appear to be that if the LAs won't do it themselves then perhaps the Govt should consider doing it for them. Dusty |
|
| Author: | Tom Thumb [ Sun Feb 01, 2004 8:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
My God. You guys read some stuff don't you. I bow to all of you who bother to read such bumpff. |
|
| Page 5 of 7 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|